Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BODMIN MOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 5 November.

ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER PLC (GROUP REORGANISATION) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 5 November.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was asked—

Exports (North-east)

Mr. Peter Atkinson: When he plans to meet business leaders in the north-east to discuss export prospects for the region. [55050]

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Brian Wilson): On 9 October, I launched a nationwide "listening to exporters" tour with a meeting in Glasgow and will visit Birmingham, Manchester and the south-east during December. I also intend to hold a similar meeting in the north-east, where I hope to meet a number of leading industrialists and exporters, including Michael Stephenson of Helena Biosciences and Peter Joliffe of Loblite Ltd., who is also chairman of the North East of England Export Club, which has some 600 members.

Mr. Atkinson: I predict that the Minister will have an ear bashing when he arrives in the north-east. The exporters will complain that the strong pound, high interest rates, new Labour taxes and new Labour regulations are destroying their businesses. Is he aware of yesterday's report by the Northern Development Company, which showed that, in the north-east, two jobs were being lost for every one created? What does that mean for the promises that Labour made before the election? What sort of new deal is that for the people of the north-east?

Mr. Wilson: I am not exactly astonished that the hon. Gentleman chooses to look on the gloomy side of

everything, but I refer him to the fact that, in the past two months alone, 5,000 new jobs have been announced in the north-east, including 1,500 in manufacturing industries. I draw his attention to the success of companies such as Solarsolve Marine in South Shields, which has just won the export award for smaller businesses. If he does not find that company—it will probably be away successfully selling its products—he could go to Immunodiagnostic Systems Ltd. of Bowden, NWC Precision Engineers Ltd. of Stanley or Eclipse Translations Ltd. of Alnwick, which are all major export success stories.
The hon. Gentleman must be well pleased with the fall in unemployment in his constituency since the general election. Ear bashings are always welcome, as they are part of the process of dialogue, but most sensible people can see the wider story—they know the world circumstances as well as the success stories in this country that are countering such difficulties.

Mr. Jim Cousins: My hon. Friend should take no lessons from the Conservative party, which, in 1981–82, destroyed a third of the north-east's manufacturing jobs in 18 months. Will he respond positively to the competitiveness agenda recently put forward by business, enterprise and representatives of employees in the north-east, so that the north-east—as the region that exports more per head than any other region of Britain—can continue its splendid exporting record and take its good exporting tradition right down to small and medium enterprises in the way that he has described, with a robust interventionism?

Mr. Wilson: The positive and constructive note struck by my hon. Friend is much more representative of the spirit of the north-east than is the carping of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who I think is the only Tory Member left in the region, which tells its own story about what happened before the general election. Unemployment has continued to fall, but we face difficult exporting conditions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman thinks that we can be immune from a world situation in which, for example, exports to the Philippines and Thailand have dropped by three fifths, to South Korea and Malaysia by a half and to Japan, Singapore and Indonesia by more than a fifth. Those figures are not a result of circumstances in the north-east; they are a result of circumstances in Asia, from which we are not immune. We all have to work that much harder and be that much more competitive, and many companies in the north-east are meeting that challenge. The Government will continue to respond to the message of my hon. Friend about constructive dialogue with everyone involved in industry and job creation.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Has the Minister, who has had much to read in his new job, had time to look at the Anglo-Portuguese News, which reported on 1 October that, in the same month as Siemens closed a plant in the north-east, it opened a plant in Evora in Portugal with 400 new jobs, specifically on the grounds of labour costs? The export from the north-east has been jobs.
Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, who are both north-eastern Members, how long they intend to sit here like local Neros, fiddling while an estimated 16,000 manufacturing jobs are to be lost in the region in the year to come?

Mr. Wilson: I must confess that I have read only the English version of that report. The lesson that I would draw from it is that it refers to a different product, different jobs and, presumably, a different system of financial support. If the Tory party is still sending out the message that we can attain immunity from world economic circumstances by some mystical process if we cut wages and conditions to the bone, it will receive exactly the same answer from the whole country as it received from the north-east at the general election.

Renewable Energy

Mr. Cynog Dafis: What plans he has to increase the target set for renewable energy output in 2010. [55052]

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): We undertook in our manifesto a commitment to a new and strong drive to develop renewable energy sources. As a first step, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry announced the fifth and largest non-fossil fuel obligation, or NFFO 5, order of 1,177 MW on 24 September 1998.
For the future, we are reviewing what would be necessary and practicable to achieve 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom's electricity needs from renewables by 2010, and what contribution new and renewable energy technologies might make to future greenhouse gas commitments.

Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister agree that, as the climate change conference in Buenos Aires approaches, renewables must become the main source of energy supply in the UK—well above the 10 per cent. Target—as a central part of the climate change strategy? Will he try to convince the Chancellor that it is terribly important that the renewable energy review be published soon, to give us a stable framework for investment, economic development and jobs? There are tremendous opportunities that we simply cannot afford to miss. Specifically, does he agree that we need to unlock the mechanisms for bio-energy, which could make an important contribution to the revitalisation of rural economies and to farm diversification, which is especially important at the moment?

Dr. Howells: Discussions have taken place between officials in my Department and in other Departments—the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for example—to consider the possibility of developing the new energy crops. The thought of hard-pressed farmers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in mine being able to supplement their incomes by growing energy crops and helping to combat greenhouse gas emissions is extremely attractive. I am confident that we will publish the review shortly and that there will be a full debate on the future of renewables. Whether we can produce a majority of our energy via renewables is

another matter. Merely to reach the 10 per cent. target we have to produce 5 GW of electricity, and if that means covering Wales in windmills, I, for one, will not have it.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: My hon. Friend will be aware of the European Commission's interest in renewable energy output. Will his Department work with our European partners to consider the barriers to renewable energy output that are created by some of the European mechanisms? Can he assure me that the previous Government's cuts in renewable research funding have been reversed?

Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry has certainly reversed those cuts. I am absolutely confident that this vital research will be carried out and that we will become the driving force in Europe for renewables. We have great resources. We have ample opportunity, for example, to develop offshore wind generators, and I am sure that that is what we will do. I am extremely interested in the idea of biomass and energy crops. There is a great future for that in this country.

Mr. Richard Page: The NFFO 5 round is welcome, as is anything that can give greater opportunity for renewables. Does the Minister not agree, however, that the problem is not the size of the round but the lack of success of the projects that have been initiated? Of the bids accepted, perhaps less than 50 per cent. have gone through to produce renewable energy. Would the Minister consider mechanisms whereby the bids can be promoted up the scale on the basis not simply of cost but of the projects' chances of success?

Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is absolutely vital both that there is a concept and that we look carefully at the delivery systems. With wind power, as happens all too often, what looked like a viable scheme was smashed apart off the Scottish coast and suddenly it became wholly unfashionable. We will get nowhere with that sort of short-term view. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that the research and development element is extremely important, but the entrepreneurial element is important, too. We must consider that carefully.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: I understand why the Minister does not wish to cover Wales with windmills, but has he any plans to develop offshore wind power? Has he received any representations on that?

Dr. Howells: I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry has received a good many representations on projects for looking at offshore wind generation. After all, we have plenty of resources for it. There is plenty of wind around. There is wind in other quarters, too. I have often thought that the most effective bit of generation would come if we could ever wire up the Chamber: we could probably keep a large part of London going.

EU Structural Funds

Mr. Andrew George: What assessment he has made of the prospects for securing objective 1 status for United Kingdom regions in the next round of negotiations on EU structural funds. [55053]

The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): On the basis of the Commission's proposals and the latest Eurostat figures, it appears likely that a number of UK areas will be eligible for objective 1 status. Detailed negotiations of the regulations are currently under way between member states and the Commission. The Cardiff Council set a deadline of the end of March 1999 for agreement on the Agenda 2000 proposals.

Mr. George: I thank the Minister for her reply. I am sure that she is aware just how anxious are the regions, which have to put together the programmes and the programming documents, that those matters should be brought to a conclusion and objective 1 regions confirmed as soon as possible. Can she confirm that the Secretary of State is as enthusiastic as his predecessor was to bring those matters to a conclusion; that she will meet a delegation from Cornwall, as requested by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) recently; and that for regions such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, this matter will be given the highest priority prior to the Dresden conference next year?

Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman knows how hard the Government have been fighting the United Kingdom case on structural funds. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present for last week's debate on this subject, but, during that debate, all parties congratulated the Government and the Secretary of State on their tough stance. I can assure the House that the Government will do all that we can to get the fairest possible outcome for the UK and all its regions.

Mr. Ben Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although much progress has been made on Merseyside, gross domestic product per capita still remains at three quarters of that of Europe as a whole? Does she therefore agree that the continuation of objective 1 status is essential for that region and that the same applies with assisted area status for the whole of Merseyside, including the Wirral?

Mrs. Roche: As regards structural funds and objective 1 status, the figures are encouraging for Merseyside. The House will know that, on assisted area status, we have a review of the map, as the Commission requires us to do. Every hon. Member has been sent a copy of the review and I urge all hon. Members to respond to it. The closing date is tomorrow.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Would not the disparities in wealth that exist within our country, which are significant, be even greater were we to accept a single currency? The differences in economic performance within the United Kingdom with our single interest rate are as nothing compared with differences in

wealth within a Europe with a single currency where a single rate of interest would not be universally appropriate.

Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman tempts me, and perhaps I can say that we probably have rather different views on the European question. What we have in common is a determination to get the best possible deal for the United Kingdom, which is why, in the negotiations, we are arguing, particularly in relation to objective 2 status, for maximum flexibility, so that we can hone our efforts towards particular areas of deprivation. That certainly will be to the benefit of all regions of the United Kingdom.

Aerospace Industry

Mr. Gordon Prentice: What representations he has received from United Kingdom aerospace companies concerning difficulties in securing Federal Aviation Authority approval. [55054]

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Brian Wilson): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. The problem was brought to my Department's attention by the Consortium of Lancashire Aerospace, and the Society of British Aerospace Companies has also written to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions about it. I understand that DETR has taken the matter up with the US Federal Aviation Authority.

Mr. Prentice: That does not surprise me because it is an immensely serious issue, not just for the Consortium of Lancashire Aerospace, but for aerospace companies across the United Kingdom, as the business is worth about £200 million a year. The long and the short of the matter is that American companies can repair British and European aircraft in the United States, but we cannot always repair American aircraft. The Federal Aviation Authority has been dragging its feet systematically for years and failing to appoint the inspectors that are required in the United Kingdom to ensure that there is a level playing field in aerospace. I urge my hon. Friend to take the matter up with his colleagues in the Department of Transport, and resolve it.

Mr. Wilson: I endorse everything that my hon. Friend says. He is right to raise the issue at every opportunity. He will also appreciate that DETR is the lead Ministry in those matters. I understand that the information that DETR has received is that, by the end of the year, the FAA should be able to devote more resources to approval issues, so it is to be hoped that the position will change and the approval of servicing facilities in the United States will proceed. We are certainly aware of the importance of the issue to UK aerospace companies and are keeping in touch with DETR. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress the importance of the industry and the issue to the British economy.

Mr. Christopher Chope: What we seek is that the FAA should act fairly and impartially as a regulator. Does the Minister agree that the Government's hand would be strengthened if the Secretary of State could be seen to be acting fairly and impartially in his own


regulatory role vis-a-vis sponsors of the dome, which include British Aerospace and GEC? Can he explain why the Secretary of State will not follow the advice in a leading article in the pink paper, the Financial Times, calling on the Secretary of State to hand over responsibility for the dome to a Government colleague and thereby
avoid the appearance of impropriety"?

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has a very loud voice, but that does not guarantee that he will say anything sensible. As he very well knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has acted impeccably on the advice of officials. He will continue to do so and is well aware of the importance of the issues. Everything is transparent and above board—exactly what could not be said of the previous Administration, whom the hon. Gentleman supported.

Small and Medium Enterprises

Mr. Brian White: If he will make a statement on his Department's work in supporting high-technology small and medium enterprises. [55055]

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Mandelson): High-technology SMEs are crucial to Britain's economic success and the enterprise and innovation which are needed to generate them will be at the heart of the forthcoming competitiveness White Paper. The Department's current support for high-technology SMEs includes grants for research and technology transfer through schemes such as the small firms merit award for research and technology—SMART—improving their financial management and marketing skills through advice and support from the business links network, and advising on how to access private finance and working with the financial community to improve the quality of appropriate finance available. We aim to extend and improve that support and we shall do so.

Mr. White: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that one of the key problems for many small high-tech companies is the gap between coming up with the idea and the innovation and being ready to go to the market to get venture capital? There is a difficulty with securing funds. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that many small companies face the barrier that financial institutions and civil servants are ultra-cautious? Will he ensure that those barriers are addressed in the forthcoming White Paper on competitiveness?

Mr. Mandelson: We shall certainly address all those issues in the White Paper. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's comments about the paramount importance of providing finance for small and medium enterprises. We certainly need more technology banking in the United Kingdom, and if we were better able to have our banks acting as investors, perhaps in a more competitive banking sector, we might be able to achieve an altogether better service.
I also agree that we need well-performing capital markets and mechanisms to provide finance through successive stages of enterprise growth. I welcome the

positive and practical proposals made in that context by the British Venture Capital Association. We shall follow up those proposals, and others, in the forthcoming White Paper.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Will the Secretary of State have a word with his opposite number at the Department for Education and Employment about the perhaps excessively complicated overseas labour section rules on overseas work permits? They are cumbersome and difficult for small high-tech companies, in which the acquisition of an overseas employee may frequently be crucial to growth.

Mr. Mandelson: That is an extremely good point, and it is well taken. On my recent visit to the United States, I spoke with entrepreneurs who managed new high-tech businesses in Silicon valley, and I was struck by how many of those enterprises got off the ground using people who had gone to the USA from around the world and who had the skills and entrepreneurial flair necessary for the success of such enterprises. If there are blockages in the system, in relation to either the Department for Education and Employment or the Home Office, they will be closely scrutinised by my Department.

Mr. Ian Pearson: May I welcome those comments? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in comparison with the position in the United States, too few companies spin off from United Kingdom university sites and engineering bases? Will he talk to his colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment about ensuring that academics in British universities are encouraged to work more with business so that there are more academic entrepreneurs and more entrepreneurial universities?

Mr. Mandelson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. One of the key objectives of the Government, and of my Department, is to turn universities from ivory towers into business partners. That practice has been successfully followed in the United States, and we could do with more of it here. My hon. Friend will not be disappointed by the measures that we shall propose in the White Paper.

Mr. Brian Cotter: Is the Secretary of State aware that, by 16 October, only 194 people had been trained as millennium bug busters? The Prime Minister suggested that we would have 20,000 by April 1999, but at that rate we shall not have that number until 2050. Would the Secretary of State care to comment?

Mr. Mandelson: If the previous Administration had recognised the problem of the millennium bug and had done more to prepare by carrying out measures that were needed long before we were able to begin on them, we would be in a better position. The Government have moved with alacrity to put necessary measures in place. I recently met Mr. Don Cruickshank, who is directing Action 2000, and if the Government need to take any further steps to ensure that we are properly prepared to overcome the problem, we shall certainly do so.

Mr. John Redwood: I welcome the Secretary of State to his first departmental Question Time,


although the fact that it is his first shows how little accountability the Government have. High-tech businesses are already being sandbagged by higher taxes, higher interest rates, an erratic sterling and a massive increase in regulation introduced by the Government. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether high-tech businesses will be in for a pounding from his predecessor's proposals on trade union reform, or whether he will water down those proposals in the light of strong business opinion against them? I have read stories in the press both ways. Some newspapers of a leftward inclination say that the right hon. Gentleman is standing by every dot and comma of his predecessor's proposals to suit the left of his party; others say that he will water them down because business does not want them. The Secretary of State has said, "No more spin, honest." Will he now, loud and clear, tell us whether he is standing by every word or watering them down? Honesty is the best policy—in all things.

Mr. Mandelson: I am tempted to say that that is rich coming from the right hon. Gentleman. I reassure him, and anyone else who is interested in the fairness at work proposals in the White Paper, that they are designed to encourage partnership in industry and at places of work. We want to encourage in all those employed in firms and companies a commitment to their success and profitability. That is what the proposals were designed to do. I am sure that, in translating those measures into the Bill that will be published by the end of the year, we will be faithful to the tenets and principles set out in the White Paper and, as a result enjoy considerable support and good will from all parts of the business community.

Mr. Ken Purchase: Will the forthcoming measures recognise the credibility gap that exists—certainly in the west midlands—between his Department's assessment and administration of grants and the great length of time that it often takes for companies to benefit from them? If the gap is recognised, what measures will the Secretary of State take to overcome it?

Mr. Mandelson: I am glrateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. If he has any specific cases in his inside pocket, or anywhere else about his person, I hope that he will draw them to my attention. It is no part of the Government's responsibility, in making much-needed financial and other assistance available to companies, to let it be held up by poor administration.

Social Chapter

Mr. Graham Brady: What his Department estimates to be the cost of the social chapter's parental leave directive, works councils directive and part-time work directive to British business. [55056]

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): Compliance cost assessments were attached to the explanatory memorandums submitted to this House and another place on 28 October 1997 in relation to the parental leave and European works councils directives and on 17 March in

relation to the part-time work directive. The Government are carrying out further work to update and refine those estimates.

Mr. Brady: I cannot thank the Minister for the detail of his reply because it was somewhat lacking. Given that Ministers have recently had the experience of BMW stating that it must cut jobs at Rover because of higher business and employment costs, does he accept in principle that the increased costs that he is applying to business will cost jobs and will he give some estimate of how many jobs the proposals will cost?

Mr. McCartney: If the hon. Gentleman had been doing his job over the summer, he would have read the documents set out in my answer. The Confederation of British Industry said, in the last year of the Conservative Government, that British industry lost £25 billion through unregulated absenteeism, a huge on-cost to business affecting its competitive advantage. Our proposals will help to cut such unregulated activity and ensure a better atmosphere in the workplace between employers and employees. On investment in this country, we have just had the biggest increase in inward investment in the past 20 years: more than 600 projects, including a new multi-million pound project in the car industry at Jaguar, which I was pleased and proud to have negotiated between Ford and the Government.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Do not those three directives represent a small increase in protection for people in the workplace? Could not that protection be better obtained by enhancing the role of trade unions in the workplace? Will my hon. Friend go a little further than the Secretary of State and confirm that there will be no significant alterations to the principles outlined in the "Fairness at Work" White Paper?

Mr. McCartney: There were very good discussions between my comrades in the Confederation of British Industry and the TUC. One could not put a trade union card between me and my right hon. Friend on those matters.
From day one, the Government have set out their stall regarding partnership in the workplace, including employment rights. Employment rights are about not whether workers are union members but the right to be treated properly in the workplace, irrespective of union membership. If a worker is a union member and wishes to be recognised as such, the legislation sets out the relevant proposals clearly and specifically. My right hon. Friend has confirmed today that the Government will proceed, as we promised, to set out a framework for partnership in the workplace, which includes trade union representation.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Before the Minister slips up again and perhaps mentions the "socialist" word in the Chamber, will he tell us how many redundancies will occur and how many businesses will go to the wall before the Government conclude that it is not extra regulations and burdens that create jobs but deregulation and competitive conditions that allow businesses to create extra jobs?

Mr. McCartney: That is a bit rich coming from a member of a Government who cast regulation after regulation upon business.
Since Labour came to power, 400,000 new jobs have been created in the economy. We have put in place the biggest job investment and training package to help young people get off the scrapheap on to which they were thrown by Conservative Members. The hon. Gentleman knows full well—as one of the biggest offenders in his almost creeping defence of the previous Government in a failed attempt to serve on their Front Bench—that, when the Conservative Government could not hide the level of unemployment, they tried to fiddle their way out of it. That is why the Conservatives are in opposition and we are in government.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Do we not need those measures to restore some basic fairness in the workplace, and do we not also need a sensible and rational debate about what level and scale of social protection is compatible with the enterprise economy? In that light, does my hon. Friend agree that the simplistic party political posturing on this issue that we see from the Conservatives—who oppose any form of regulation, wherever it occurs, under whatever circumstances—is completely wrong and unhelpful to the debate?

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right. That is why the British business community and the Government are absolutely committed to the principle of achieving competitive advantage by not spiralling down wages and conditions but by investing in a trained and skilled work force that is dedicated to the enterprise and its success. Only Conservative Members maintain the principle that Britain can succeed only by becoming the sweatshop capital of Europe. We reject that principle, as do the British people and British business.

Interest Rates

Mr. John Bercow: What research his Department has undertaken on the cost to British industry of increases in interest rates. [55058]

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Mandelson): The tough and decisive action by the Government, including taking the politics out of interest rate setting, will create the long-term economic stability that industry needs and ensure that Britain steers a course of stability in an uncertain and unstable world.

Mr. Bercow: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that small businesses, which make up more than 90 per cent. of all enterprises in Britain, do not ordinarily pay the implausible interest rates that Ministers habitually parrot in this Chamber, but typically pay 11 per cent. or more on their overdrafts and other business borrowings? What confidence can business men and women, who face the prospect of a deepening economic crisis and who strive daily to keep their heads above water, have in Ministers who fail woefully to understand the real interest rates that real businesses must pay daily in the real world?

Mr. Mandelson: Under the previous Administration, a small business closed every three minutes as a result of the economic policies pursued by that Government. The hon. Gentleman has to understand that industry as a whole—small, medium and larger companies—would

stand to lose a great deal more if the Government were to allow the economy to lurch back into the stop-go policies of the past. If we had failed to take the prompt and decisive action that we have taken since coming into office, industry would pay a higher cost in interest rates in future years. That is exactly what happened when interest rates reached 15 per cent. in the early 1990s, precisely because the Government failed to take the necessary action early enough to avoid that happening.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I welcome my right hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. What advice will his Department be giving the Monetary Policy Committee now that inflation has been settling at around 2.5 per cent? Can we now look forward to the Government—particularly the Department responsible for manufacturing industry—giving a clear signal, as they are entitled to do in their advice to the MPC, that this is the time for interest rates to start falling even further than last month's welcome quarter of a per cent. cut?

Mr. Mandelson: As my hon. Friend has said, it is the MPC that sets interest rates to meet the Government's inflation target. In doing so, the committee takes account of all available information, some of which comes from my Department. The Government will continue to give the committee full support in whatever difficult decisions on interest rates it has to take. In announcing its last quarter of a per cent. cut in rates, the committee noted that the international economic and financial environment had deteriorated and the outlook for demand had weakened. I am sure that, in view of that, the decision that the committee took was a wise one. I am also sure that that wisdom will continue to be shown in all its decisions.

Mr. John Redwood: Is the Secretary of State aware that our interest rates are more than double those in France and Germany, making it extremely difficult for our manufacturing businesses to compete? Is he aware that the Bank of England has cited two Government policies as being especially damaging, leading it to leave interest rates higher than manufacturing can afford'? The Bank has cited the coming minimum wage and the impact that it thinks that that will have on wage inflation higher up the scale. In addition, it has cited the big increase in public spending—my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have always criticised the surge in welfare spending over which the Government are presiding.
Why will not the Secretary of State and his colleagues now release us from the pressures of the minimum wage? Why will he not restore family credit, instead of introducing the working families tax credit scheme, which is so much dearer? Does he not realise that the Bank of England would be more relaxed about Government policy if he did so? The Bank would see that expenditure and wages were under better control and it could then start to cut interest rates, as business wants. That is what business desperately needs from him and his colleagues.

Mr. Mandelson: On the subject of public spending, the right hon. Gentleman needs to have a word with his colleagues in the shadow Cabinet, especially the shadow Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Health, both of whom have been complaining that the


Government, far from spending too much, are spending too little. By what voice should we judge the policies and approach of the Opposition? They speak with many voices and they need to clarify exactly what their view is.
As for the national minimum wage, I note that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to continue the policy of his predecessors, which is to support poverty wages in this country. I have certainly had no sign at all from the Governor of the Bank, who in conversation offered a view on that very subject, that the national minimum wage has been wrongly set. The real disaster for the economy would be to retreat to the boom-and-bust policies of the previous Administration, which did such enormous and long-term damage to British jobs and British prosperity.

Mr. Redwood: Perhaps if the Secretary of State read the minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee, he and his colleagues would start to relieve the pressure on businesses, as they need him to do. Will he stop peddling false rumours about the Opposition's position? All of us—the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Chancellor, the relevant spokesmen and myself—support improved provision for health and education. We all condemn the wasteful rake's progress and breaking of promises on welfare. If the right hon. Gentleman sorted out those matters and read the minutes of the MPC, industry might not have to suffer so much.

Mr. Mandelson: The right hon. Gentleman is obviously determined to add bluster to his policies of boom and bust. The Conservative party's spin doctors are responsible for sorting out the rival positions of members of the shadow cabinet; I am glad that I moved on from that responsibility some time ago.

Employment Opportunities (Small Business)

Mr. John Heppell: What plans he has to increase employment opportunities in small businesses. [55059]

The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The creation of new employment in small businesses is dependent primarily on a climate of stable, sustained economic growth. The Government have taken decisive action to establish a new framework for monetary policy to ensure economic stability.
The Government are also committed to helping businesses to overcome financial, regulatory and other barriers to growth.

Mr. Heppell: My hon. Friend will be aware that many small businesses in Nottingham have sensibly taken advantage of the Government's new deal to ensure that they have a well-trained and highly motivated work force. Has she made an assessment of the importance of the new deal in creating employment opportunities?

Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the opportunities offered by the new deal for people gaining employment and for small and medium enterprises. More than three quarters of the 25,000 employers who have signed up to the new deal are small companies, which means that they are often,

valuably, filling gaps and creating necessary skilled jobs. That is why the new deal has been so warmly welcomed by small businesses.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My question seriously follows up earlier questions and is relevant to this matter. Does the Minister agree that the best way for the Government to encourage additional employment by small businesses would be to change the guidelines and criteria of the Monetary Policy Committee so as to enable it, under the Governor of the Bank of England, Eddie George, to reduce interest rates to make them competitive for companies in this country? I am following up the request made, in person, of the Government and the Secretary of State by the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), who chairs the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. Is it not important for us to consider interest rates, because they are so fundamental to investment by small businesses which would increase employment?

Mrs. Roche: I know that the hon. Gentleman has an impressive record of support for manufacturing industry and interest in small businesses. I know from my extensive discussions with small businesses and my visits to them that the most important factor for them is economic stability. Nothing was more damaging than the record of the previous Government, which saw us going from boom to bust and back again. We need a period of stability, which is exactly what the Government are providing.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will my hon. Friend remind the Opposition that, if we want to know about long-term competitive conditions for small businesses, we must consider long-term interest rates? For many years under the previous Administration, we suffered from penal long-term interest rates. Since Labour came to power, we have started to reduce those rates, which is good for large, medium and small businesses.

Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend is right, and he speaks with many years' knowledge of this matter. It is essential that all businesses, but particularly small and medium businesses, know what conditions will be, not only for the next few weeks but for the next few months. We are providing that stability and certainty.

Mr. David Chidgey: Does the Minister recall her colleague, the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, saying, when in opposition, that, if Britain dragged behind its Community partners on economic and monetary union it
would be a serious blow …would make Britain a
far
less attractive place
to invest in and would jeopardise even
more jobs"?—[Official Report, 24 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 964.]
Does she agree with him?

Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman knows precisely what the Government have said about economic and monetary union. The key thing that we must do at the moment is to prepare all our businesses—small, medium or large—for the fact that there will be 300 million consumers in the euro zone. The key thing that the


Government must make up for is the deficiency of the previous Government, who wasted precious time squabbling among themselves instead of acting for the country, and thereby let those small businesses down. That is why we are doing so much work on preparing our businesses, so that they can take true competitive advantage of the euro zone when it comes into being on 1 January.

Steel Industry

Helen Jackson: If he will make a statement on the prospects for the steel industry. [55061]

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Mandelson): The UK steel industry is facing pressures from international competition, but it is one of the success stories of the British economy. It is one of the most efficient and productive steel industries in the world. The industry continues to attack its cost base to ensure that it remains profitable and is better able to compete at home and overseas.

Helen Jackson: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. He may be aware that the plant at Stocksbridge in my constituency is one of the most efficient producers of special engineering steel in the country and in Europe, and that it fulfils more than 50 per cent. of the needs of the home market for that type of steel, which provides the vital bits and pieces in car engines and aero-engines that we all depend on. However, by its nature, it requires stability and consistency in its supply chain and its energy costs. What will the Government do to help provide that consistency and stability, to ensure that Stocksbridge remains one of the prime manufacturing locations in the country?

Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend is right in the way in which she describes the success of that company and of that plant. I shall happily—as I would expect to do—learn a great deal more of its success when I visit Sheffield later today, when I shall probably meet representatives, if not of that company, at least of the steel industry in Sheffield. The UK steel industry has undergone substantial restructuring since the 1970s, but productivity has increased fourfold and it continues to invest more than £350 million a year in new plant and innovation. I believe that, with that commitment to productivity, to investment and to increasing the industry's competitiveness, we shall continue to see further success. It will certainly have the full support of my Department.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The Minister mentioned visits. I wonder whether he will shortly visit a country that is one of the most attractive and growing markets for British steel because of the careful way in which it has balanced political and economic forces—Chile?

Mr. Mandelson: I have no plans to visit Chile, although, if I had been able to add a visit to it to my forthcoming visit to Brazil and Argentina in the time available, I should have been only too pleased to do so.

Mr. Barry Jones: In welcoming my right hon. Friend to his post, may I tell him of the

dismay and desperation of steelworkers at the Shotton works in my constituency, who see yet more redundancies on the horizon? How might he help the industry and Shotton with regard to energy costs and to dumping from the far east of steel products? I know that he will not tell steelworkers in my constituency to sharpen up their act, because they are the most competitive, productive and co-operative—and have been the most successful—steelworkers that one could imagine. In 1980, they suffered 8,000 direct steel job losses in just two months. I know that he will do all that he can to help them.

Mr. Mandelson: I should never dream of simply asking any work force in any company to sharpen up its act. I should, however, always say to any company, all those who are employed in it and particularly all those who manage it and are responsible for its long-term strategic direction, to raise their game and performance and sharpen up their act. That injunction is well taken.
In the case of any redundancies in any industry or locality, the local Employment Service will work closely with the companies concerned and the resettlement consultants appointed. We take that responsibility seriously.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the EU Commission is responsible for taking any anti-dumping action and, in working with the EU Commission, we shall consider each complaint on its merits.

Brewing Industry

Mr. James Gray: What assessment he has made of the impact of the provisions of the Competition Bill [Lords] on employment in the brewing industry. [55063]

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): We have a fine brewing industry which understands the need for all sectors to be capable of taking on international competition. I should expect the Bill's provision of a more effective regime to help in that respect by deterring and tackling anti-competitive agreements and conduct in the brewing industry as in every other. It will lead to a more competitive market, which will provide the basis for greater employment opportunities.

Mr. Gray: I think that I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, although I am concerned that he seems to be reconfirming that agreements between breweries and tied houses will be within the provisions of the Bill—something that was not clear before. I am particularly concerned about the agreements between small country breweries, such as Wadworth and Arkell's in my constituency, and the country pubs. Will those agreements be within the terms of the Bill or not?

Dr. Howells: Yes, they will be. On supply agreements, we have received notice that the European Commission intends to take a favourable view of a number of standard United Kingdom pub leases. Formal exemption decisions will be expected in the next few months.

Mr. John Smith: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the growth in small and


independent breweries throughout Britain, which will benefit not only from the proposals in the Competition Bill but from the legislation due on 1 November on late payment to companies, a crucial factor affecting the success of small businesses? It will help to create not only a better environment for the future but a business culture and climate in which late payment is unacceptable.

Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are the first Government to tackle successfully the question of late payment. We have raised it as an issue and acted upon it. Given the Conservative party's attitude to the brewing industry, the question is a bit rich coming from them. Just last July, Conservative Members talked out a private Member's Bill that would have allowed every beer drinker in Britain to have a proper measure of beer. How many more jobs in the brewing industry would that have created? In everything the Conservative party touches, it short-changes consumers and workers. We put consumers and workers at the centre of everything that we do.

Libya

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What representations he has received from the British-Libyan business group concerning actions taken since July 1998 by the Libyan Government against UK firms involved in work in Libya. [55065]

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Brian Wilson): The Secretary of State has received two letters from Mr. Kevin Boyle, chairman of the British-Libyan business group, covering several points on UK Libyan trade. Those have not included specific references to actions taken by the Libyan Government.

Mr. Dalyell: What was the Department's understanding about an embargo against British goods and services in relation to the great man-made river project, possibly the biggest engineering project in Africa? Will my hon. Friend discuss with Kevin Boyle the problem surrounding visas, which is a great difficulty for British business men in what is a potentially lucrative, once British, market?

Mr. Wilson: As my hon. Friend is well aware, those issues do not take place within a vacuum. I am well aware of the potential and the past trade with Libya. If the other

issues could be resolved, as I am sure my hon. Friend wishes, and I and the Government wish, it would be extremely healthy and positive for our relations with Libya, including our commercial relations.
I am not aware of an embargo on British contracts in connection with the great man-made river. The Department receives many inquiries from British firms about it and we give them balanced advice. Problems with visas should not arise for legitimate business people and, if they do, I would be pleased to discuss them further. I shall ask my officials to speak to Mr. Boyle on those matters.

Fairness at Work

Mr. Paul Marsden: what representations he has received on the fairness at work White Paper. [55066]

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): The Department has received 474 responses, reflecting a wide range of views, to the White Paper on fairness at work published on 21 May. I have placed a list of respondents in the Library of the House.

Mr. Marsden: I assume that all sides in British industry have replied to the proposals. Will my hon. Friend lend his support to making partnerships in British industry work? As a former manager in British industry, I have seen the damage caused by conflict and disagreement. We need far more compromise and reconciliation. What are my hon. Friend's views on the proposed partnership fund?

Mr. McCartney: There has been an overwhelmingly positive response to the concept of partnership at work set out in the White Paper, and to the specific proposal for establishing a partnership fund for innovative projects to improve the training of managers in the workplace and employee representatives, to encourage partnership approaches across a range of activities currently taking place in companies. That will ensure over time that the Government put their money where their mouth is and invest in processes to improve industrial and employee relationships across the workplaces of Britain. I am delighted to say that discussion with the social partners so far will enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make an announcement about those matters in due course.

Business of the House

Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 2 NOVEMBER—Debate on the security and intelligence agencies on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY 3 NOVEMBER—Debate on personal pensions mis-selling on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 4 NOVEMBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day (20th allotted day).
Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the economy, followed by a debate on agriculture. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
THURSDAY 5 NOVEMBER—Debate on the report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 6 NOVEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
MONDAY 9 NOVEMBER—Debate on the fifth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on the funding of political parties in the United Kingdom on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to be reminded that, on Wednesday 4 November, there will be a debate on the social action programme 1998–2000 in European Standing Committee B.
The House will also wish to know that it is proposed that, on Wednesday 11 November, there will be a debate in European Standing Committee B on Agenda 2000: financial aspects.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

[Wednesday 4 November:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 8328/98, Social Action Programme (1998–2000); and relevant European Legislation Committee report, HC 155-xxx (1997–98).
Wednesday 11 November:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: (a) 7046/98, Agenda 2000: The financial perspective 2000–2006, (b) 7221/98, Agenda 2000: The interinstitutional agreement of 29 October 1993, (c) 9302/98 ADD1: Own resources based on VAT and GNP, (d) COM(98)560, Financing the European Union; and relevant European Legislation Committee reports: (a) HC 155-xxvi and HC 155-xxxvii (1997–98), (b) HC 155-xxvi (1997–98), (c) HC 155-xxxvii (1997–98), (d) HC 155-xxxviii (1997–98).]

Sir George Young: We are grateful to the right hon. Lady for providing the business for next week. Her predecessor was able to announce two weeks' business in advance, which was found to be helpful both inside and

outside the House. Will the Leader of the House confirm that that is her intention, and that she will revert to that practice as soon as she can?
I welcome the right hon. Lady's response to my request last week for an early debate on the Jenkins report. I hope that, in that debate, the Government spokesman will reconcile two sentences from the Labour party manifesto:
We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons
and
We have promised only what we know we can deliver.
Can she tell us whether a promise is to be broken?
The Leader of the House will know that we asked for a statement about Senator Pinochet. Of course we understand the sub judice rule, but will the right hon. Lady accept that, once the matter ceases to be sub judice, serious questions will remain to be answered? Will the Home Secretary make a statement before the House about the confusion that arose between Government Departments? Can the Foreign Secretary explain how relationships with Chile can be restored, as their democratic Government have made it clear that they want this matter to be brought to a swift conclusion?
Although we regret the Prime Minister's failure to make a statement following last weekend's European summit at which a number of key issues were covered, can the Leader of the House confirm that the Chancellor will make a statement on Tuesday? Can she confirm that we shall have, in Government time, the two-day debate on the economy that we usually have at this time of year? Following the further fall in business confidence reported in the press today, the Government have refused yet again to find time for a debate on the economy.
In view of the continuing uncertainty in Kosovo, may I press the Leader of the House for a debate on foreign affairs? Finally, is she yet able to give us the date of prorogation?

Mrs. Beckett: By chance, the first and last of the right hon. Gentleman's questions work well together. He asked the date of prorogation; he also asked me to return to the arrangement whereby we give two weeks' notice of business. My difficulty in both respects relates directly to the operation of another place. I cannot give a date for prorogation, although I can confirm that it is likely to be late because of the timing of debates in another place. Similarly, that is why I cannot give two weeks' notice of business. I very much regret that. I entirely share the right hon. Gentleman's view that it is highly desirable to do so, and confirm that it would always be my wish to do so as soon as that once again becomes possible.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about the debate on the Jenkins commission report. It is clear from the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is making on that matter—I know that he will make it clear in the debate—that the Government primarily seek the fullest possible debate. The Government are committed to a referendum on those matters so that the people of this country can give their view, but it is clear, too, that the timing of that must be looked at in the context of the Jenkins report. It is certainly not ruled out that it may well be within this Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me for a statement on the Senator Pinochet issue when it ceases to be sub judice, which it is not yet. However, I can say that, as the Prime


Minister made crystal clear yesterday, there has been no confusion between Government Departments. As he pointed out, the request came from the Spanish Government to the magistrates, not via this Government.
The right hon. Gentleman regretted the failure to report on the EU summit. As he is aware, it was an informal meeting in Austria. There were no formal conclusions to report to the House, and no formal statement was issued. The Prime Minister has always followed the practice, where there are such statements or communiqués, of reporting to the House, and he will continue to follow it.
As for a debate on the economy, I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to make a statement on the matter. Arrangements for future debates on the economy are generally a matter for the usual channels, but we are likely in the not-too-distant future to have a Queen's Speech and an opportunity to debate such matters.
We shall continue to keep the House informed about developments in Kosovo, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has done throughout.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, some time ago, the Modernisation Committee reported on the need to improve the scrutiny of European legislation, both within the House as a whole and within its specific Committees? Can she give a firm undertaking that those recommendations will be debated on the Floor of the House before this Session ends so that they can come into effect in the next parliamentary Session?

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot absolutely give my hon. Friend the undertaking that he seeks, but I can confirm that I share his wish to see such an outcome. As he knows, the House is under some pressure at present, but I hope to accommodate him before the end of the Session.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Can the Leader of the House give us any more details about the nature of the motions that the Opposition will be tabling next Wednesday? It will not have escaped her notice that we had debates on the economy and agriculture on Monday, and Conservative Members not only did not turn up or table an amendment, but did not vote. It is well known that some Conservative Members find difficulty in reaching the Chamber in eight minutes, but 10 days to get to the Division Lobbies is rather a lengthy time.
The Leader of the House has made an announcement about the timing of the Jenkins report, and we certainly welcome an early debate in the House on the independent commission's recommendations. Does she think that sufficient time will have elapsed for the Conservative party to get its act together between now and then? She will have noted that the Conservative party published its reaction to the report before the report was published, and so missed all the rebuttal of its arguments contained in the report. Will she particularly note that the Conservative party has decided not to use the first-past-the-post system to elect its leader, although Conservative Members now seem to think that that is the one type of election that they can all rally around?
Will the Leader of the House give us a specific answer to a specific question: is it not right that every member of the parliamentary Labour party was elected to the House on a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the subject of the Jenkins report in this Parliament?

Mrs. Beckett: May I begin where the hon. Gentleman ended? The manifesto commitment, on which—he is right—every Labour candidate fought the election, was that we would have a referendum on proportional representation.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In this Parliament?

Mrs. Beckett: No, the manifesto did not say that. It was, broadly speaking, the expectation, and might well indeed be the outcome, that the referendum would be held in this Parliament, but that was not the wording of the manifesto, which is what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said. It is only fair to set the record straight.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to comment on the attendance of Conservative Members at Liberal Democrat Opposition day debates. It would not be right for me to intrude on private grief in that matter. He also asked me to speculate on the wording of the motions. That, also, is not directly within my area of responsibility, although we can be quite confident that, in some way or other, we will discover that the blame for everything that has gone wrong in this country lies at the door of the Government, and that nothing whatever relates in any way to the actions of the Conservative party or to its 18-year tenure of government.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me whether I believe that the Conservative party will get its act together on Jenkins. It would be wrong for me to predict that it will either get its act together on anything or that Conservative Members will all rally around anything.

Mr. Richard Burden: May I, too, add my welcome for the early debate on the report from the independent commission and express my hope that, whatever our different views on the report, we debate what is in it, rather than things that are not in it, as has happened today? What happened was hardly surprising, because some views were published before the report was published.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the important debate on the report will take place not in the House, but outside? It is the responsibility of all hon. Members to ensure that that debate is as informed and open as possible, because the British people should have the final say on the way in which Members of Parliament are elected, rather than Members of Parliament working it all out for themselves.

Mrs. Beckett: I agree with most of what my hon. Friend said in the sense that I whole-heartedly agree that it is enormously important that there is a thorough, proper and well-considered debate on those issues in the country. I take the view, however, that it is right for the House, if I may venture to say so, to lead that debate. It is important that hon. Members make their own contribution and, although the decision in the referendum will ultimately rest with the British people, the outcome will undoubtedly be influenced by discussions in this place.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to call for a thorough and long public debate—I certainly believe that it should be constructive, and hope that that will be the outcome—but it is also right to recognise that this House has its proper place.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Leader of the House recall that, last week, when I put to her my complaint about the draft order on the arrangements and expenditure involved in The Hague trial of the Lockerbie suspects, she kindly suggested that I should raise the issue with the Foreign Secretary on Tuesday, which I did? He said that there was no reason why hon. Members could not have a debate on the subject. Sadly, however, having applied to Madam Speaker, I was advised this morning that I was unsuccessful in the ballot.
As the United States has said that time is running out, and as this matter is vital to the relatives of those who lost their lives and to the people of Libya, would the Government agree to hold a debate to let the House express a view on what some consider to be an incorrect policy and others think is correct? Surely the House should debate an order produced by the Government on a vital issue of public policy.

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time for a debate for the hon. Gentleman in the near future. I suspect that he has not wholly exhausted the procedures. Knowing his skill and experience as a parliamentarian, I am confident that he will continue to explore the means open to him to secure a debate on this matter in the near future. I shall draw his observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend may have heard the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry refer in Question Time to the need for more competition among the banks. May we have a debate on the banking sector, because the National Westminster bank's operations are causing much damage to many businesses in our constituencies, and much heartache to our constituents? The banking practices of the National Westminster bank, including the practices of its subsidiary Lombard, should be exposed to Parliament. May we have that debate as a matter of urgency?

Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot promise my hon. Friend such a debate as a matter of urgency. Like the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), my hon. Friend is skilled in finding opportunities to raise matters, and I am confident that he will do so.

Mrs. Theresa May: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware that, last October—a year ago—the Government published a Green Paper on the provision for children with special educational needs. In December last year, the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), promised that, when the Government gave their response to the Green Paper, they would come to the House. A response has been promised since last April, and there have been rumours that it will be made in a statement to the House. However, I learned this afternoon that the Government intend to make their response not to the

House as promised, but in a press conference next week. Will the Leader of the House ensure either that the response is made to the House in a statement or that we have an early debate on special educational needs and the Government's response to the consultation?

Mrs. Beckett: I understand the hon. Lady's concern. The subject of special educational needs arouses great interest on both sides of the House. I hear what she says about expectations of the outcome of the consultation, and I shall draw her views to the attention of my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends in the Department for Education and Employment. However, I cannot undertake to find time for a debate next week.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, in next week's debate, the Government will be astute and will not get tied hand and foot to the tinpot Jenkins proposals which were published today? If those proposals were carried into practice, every constituency in Britain would have to be changed, there would be first and second-class Members of Parliament, and for some the entire constituency link would be removed. As for the report, we need two bottles of claret to digest it.
Will my right hon. Friend always remember that Roy Jenkins—"Woy of the Wadicals"—was the man who tried to destroy the Labour party some years ago, and failed? He destroyed the Social Democratic party, and now he is among the Liberal Democrats. Word has it that even some of the Liberal Democrats do not like the Jenkins proposition. He is trying to destroy them as well.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has made it plain why it is necessary for a full debate to take place on those issues, about which he has raised important points. As for his call for the Government to be astute, I assure him that we endeavour to be so.

Mr. John Wilkinson: May we have a debate, as a matter of urgency, on transport in London, in view of the exorbitant and scandalous increases in tube fares that are to take place from January next year? Tube fares are to rise to five times the inflation rate, while bus fares will rise to six times that rate, and further increases above inflation are projected for every year until 2002. Is that the Labour party's integrated transport strategy in action? The debate in question should surely be wound up by a Treasury Minister, as the travelling public will have to travel not by tube or bus, but by car, and will thus be caught not only by duty rates that are above inflation but by congestion tax. It seems that the only possibility for Londoners is to travel on foot.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman asks me to arrange a debate in the near future, which I am not sure that I can undertake to do. He also asks whether that increase is a consequence of the Labour party's integrated transport policy. No; it is a consequence of the Conservative party's neglect of London Transport, its failure to invest and its ignoring of Londoners' transport needs over the past 18 years. As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware, London Transport fares are the statutory responsibility of


London Transport, not of Ministers, and the balance between fare levels and the need for investment is always difficult to strike.

Mr. John Cryer: May we have a debate on the role of private firms and private capital in education action zones? I understand that McDonald's has become involved in one zone. I cannot believe that its motive is entirely altruistic; it is more likely to be the wish to stuff hamburgers down children's throats.
There are various worries about the role of private firms in the new education action zones. May we have a debate soon?

Mrs. Beckett: I know that the issue of education action zones, how they might work and how they could deliver different ideas on the running of the education system is a matter of interest and controversy throughout the House. I will bear my hon. Friend's request in mind, but I am afraid that I cannot promise a debate in the near future.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I am grateful to the Government for lifting the siege of the London clinic, a subject to which I shall want to return when the case ceases to be sub judice, but did the Leader of the House really mean to say that the extradition request had come from the Spanish Government? I had understood that that was the one source from which it had not come.

Mrs. Beckett: I think I am right in saying that, although the request originated with a Spanish judge, it had to have the imprimatur of a Spanish Minister in order to be delivered. If I am incorrect, I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman, but 'in any event' that does not affect the main thrust of my earlier answer, which was that the matter was not dealt with through this Government.

Mr. Tony McNulty: Has my right hon. Friend read the comment attributed to Sir Paul Condon this morning that pay levels in the Metropolitan police somehow excuse corruption? I am sure that that rather strange comment was a misquotation, or that it was quoted out of context, but does it not highlight the fact that the sooner we have the annual Adjournment debate on policing in London, the better? I wonder whether it could be fitted in before prorogation.

Mrs. Beckett: I do not know whether the remarks that Sir Paul Condon is reported to have made have been quoted accurately, but I recognise and understand my hon. Friend's active interest in policing in London, and agree that it is worthy of debate in the House. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate during this Session, but the next Session might be another matter.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House is aware that western parts of the United Kingdom have experienced severe weather and flooding in recent times. In my constituency, Garden street, Steeple street and Hurdsfield road, and the houses in those streets, have been under water. In the village of Bollington, north of my constituency, Water street and John street have been under water. The village of Adlington has experienced severe flooding, and part of the village of Prestbury, at Bridge green, has also been under water.
As the House will have time over the next week or two, will the right hon. Lady arrange for the appropriate Minister to come to the House and make a statement about the experience in the west of England that has resulted from the severe weather, so that we know what action we can take to help our constituents and what help may be available to our local authorities—whether borough or county councils—so that they can try to alleviate the suffering?

Mrs. Beckett: Like hon. Members from both sides of the House, I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the distress that is being experienced as a result of the flooding. I will certainly bear in mind his request for a debate, although, as I know that he will appreciate from his long experience in the House, we are approaching a point in the Session when time will be under pressure in various ways. He will know that, on 20 October, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made a statement on the lessons to be learned from the Easter floods. The Government keep those matters under review and will certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the relationship between Members of Parliament and their constituencies, particularly the fact that they have a responsibility to represent the areas for which they are elected? In the context of the Jenkins debate, will she make it clear that any proposal for a two-tier system of Members of Parliament, in which Members at large could interfere in any of the 10 constituencies within an area, would be contrary to the tradition in which Members of Parliament represent the electorate of a town, city or constituency for which they are elected?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend, too, alludes to the proposals in the Jenkins commission report. He identifies important aspects of those proposals, which I know the House—whether hon. Members support or oppose them—will want most thoroughly to debate and to encourage the public to debate.

Mr. Paul Keetch: May I press the Leader of the House on the issue of the floods that are causing so much havoc not only in the west of England but in the Welsh borders? In my constituency, the city of Hereford is effectively cut off—there are no trains in or out of the city and the main A49 is blocked by waist-high water at the Belmont roundabout. The city is in gridlock and Herefordshire's largest trading estate—at Rotherwas—has been closed. People are today being evacuated from their homes, at least one fanner is believed to have drowned and two old people's homes have been closed. Floods are heading for Ross-on-Wye, where evacuations will take place later today and a school is being made ready as a reception centre. Moreover, four Royal National Lifeboat Institution inshore lifeboats have been stationed in Herefordshire. Although, as the right hon. Lady said to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), we have had a statement on the Easter floods, clearly the lessons have not been learnt, so why can we not have a statement on those floods?

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot recall whether the hon. Gentleman was here when my hon. Friend the


Parliamentary Secretary made a statement a few days ago, but part of the problem at Easter was the failure of the flood warning system and, as I understand it, some lessons have been learnt from that. However, that does not detract in any way from the hon. Gentleman's concerns, which the House will share, for his constituents and others who are affected by present developments. I assure him that the Government are monitoring, and will continue to monitor, the position carefully. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who deal with those matters, are in the Chamber and have heard this exchange.

Mr. David Winnick: Are not some of our hon. Friends being somewhat unfair to Lord Jenkins? As for next Thursday's debate, should not Lord Jenkins and his colleagues be warmly congratulated for making recommendations that are so untenable and unacceptable that most people will conclude that, with all its faults, the first-past-the-post system is far preferable to a two-tier House of Commons, which there has never been in the past and which there should not be in the future?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes it absolutely plain how wise the Government were to arrange for a debate next week.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Has the right hon. Lady seen early-day motion 1714?
[That this House welcomes the acknowledgement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that his responsibilities for competition policy require him 'both to act fairly and impartially and to be seen to do so'; notes that he satisfied himself he could take decisions about the British Airways/American Airlines alliance, and 'having discussed it with officials' decided he should determine whether the proposed acquisition by BSkyB of Manchester United be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; calls upon him to explain why he concluded that he will be seen to be acting fairly and impartially in these cases, despite the acceptance by the New Millennium Experience Company of sponsorship from British Airways and Bskyb totalling £24 million; further notes that the Director General of Fair Trading is investigating the profitability of supermarkets, including Tesco which has committed sponsorship to the NMEC of £12 million; is concerned that the NMEC is negotiating with the Ford Motor Company over a £12 million sponsorship when it may lay off workers at Dagenham and when the DGFT is about to investigate UK car prices; is concerned that companies may appear to be compromised by the refusal of the Secretary of State to separate his role as regulator and sole shareholder of the NMEC; and calls upon him to give up his position with the NMEC immediately or step aside from any regulatory role regarding any industry involved in NMEC sponsorship.]
Will the right hon. Lady arrange a debate on the difficulties arising from the different interests of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the issue of interests and understandings for someone who holds the important post of Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is always kept under review by the Ministers involved and by proper officials. It has been confirmed repeatedly that my right hon. Friend does not have a conflict of interest.

Mr. David Drew: Yesterday's statement on welfare reform by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security was very welcome, but will my right hon. Friend discuss with him the urgent need for widowers' rights to be promoted, because the existing anomalies are unacceptable?

Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that my hon. Friend's remarks can and will be drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention. Welfare reform is a major programme that is being conducted benefit by benefit and service by service. I feel confident that further announcements will be made in due course.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Is it possible to arrange an early debate on the Government's energy policy? An application is pending for 15 wind turbines that will stretch from Pendle, a neighbouring constituency, into Ribble Valley, which is an area of outstanding natural beauty which attracts tourists and is used largely for agriculture. There is another application for about 350 wind turbines in Wales. If we have one more wind turbine in Wales, it is likely to take off on a windy day—not the answer to devolution for which we were looking. For a small fraction of the cost that goes towards subsidising turbines, energy conservation measures could save more energy than could ever be generated by those useless, ugly and unwanted wind turbines.

Mrs. Beckett: I take heed of the hon. Gentleman's request. He will know that there are a variety of ways in which to pursue the opportunity to raise such issues, especially if they are constituency related—in Adjournment debates and so on. I will, of course, draw his concerns to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends who deal with such matters.

Mr. John Smith: Will my right hon. Friend find time for the House to debate the accountability of quangos set up by the previous Government between now and the date they are likely to be wound up? I refer in particular to the Cardiff Bay development corporation and its cavalier treatment of charter fishing vessels owned by my constituents which sail out of Cardiff bay. Up to a dozen small businesses could be destroyed and, I am afraid, people are desperate. I spoke today to Skipper Steve Jones of the Lady Helen; my impression was that, unless the development corporation behaves in an acceptable manner, people may take desperate measures.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and I know of his great regard for his constituents' interests. I feel confident that he has taken steps to draw the matter to the attention of my parliamentary colleagues, but I fear that I cannot promise him a debate in Government time in the near future. Perhaps he might pursue the matter through an Adjournment debate.

Dr. Evan Harris: May I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the Labour party manifesto commitment to end
unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists"?
She has redefined a manifesto commitment as not necessarily applying to the Parliament concerned—which makes that merely a commitment to keep it in the manifesto—but does she accept that the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill, which was steered through all its stages in the House of Lords by the Labour peer Lady Turner of Camden, would be a worthwhile measure to end the institutionalised, widespread and systematic discrimination against homosexuals? As the Member in charge of the Bill in this place, I wonder whether Government time could be found in this spillover period to debate and legislate on that important matter.

Mrs. Beckett: I am deeply touched by the care with which hon. Members have read the Labour party manifesto and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we stand by its contents. I fear, however, that, as he will know, it is always difficult for a Government to find time for other measures, no matter how important and worth while the subject. I take his points about the seriousness with which those matters should be discussed and the opportunity that has been made in the other place. I cannot undertake to find time before the end of the Session, even for such an important measure.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to resolve the ministerial muddle over the future of the Post Office? The right hon. Lady will recall that the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, who is responsible for the Post Office—the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)—announced on 16 May last year a review of the options for the future of the Post Office with a view in particular to removing "unnecessary and damaging shackles" on it. The right hon. Lady and her colleagues will be aware that, since then, there has largely been an eerie silence in public, punctuated by occasional briefings to some journalists that the Government favour a radical move, and counter-briefings to others that they do not. Is it not time that Ministers stopped arguing like ferrets in a sack, came clean and announced their proposals for the future in the interests of management, employees and customers of the Post Office?

Mrs. Beckett: I am a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman raises the matter with me today, since we have just had Trade and Industry questions—

Mr. Bercow: The matter did not come up. The question was not reached.

Mrs. Beckett: That has never stopped the hon. Gentleman before. I feel confident, knowing the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity, that, had he really tried, he could have worked the matter into some question or other.
There is no confusion about the future of the Post Office. The Government are committed both to giving it greater commercial freedom and to its success. As for talk about removing shackles and concern about its future, all I can say is that when the Tory party had responsibility for those matters, it made an awful mess.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: May I ask the Leader of the House in her capacity as Chair of the

Modernisation Committee—[Interruption.] Chairman of the Modernisation Committee—to draw to her colleagues' attention when bringing forward their proposals for the Queen's Speech the excellent new systems for bringing legislation before the House? Will she ask them to fulfil the promise of her predecessor that, in the next Session, there will be a number of Bills that take advantage of those new procedures, which will be to the benefit of the House and the legislation?

Mrs. Beckett: I do not wish to pre-empt any of the processes of the Queen's Speech, but I can say to the hon. Gentleman that I strongly share the view that there is room for improvement of the ways in which we scrutinised legislation in the past, which would immeasurably improve the quality of the legislation and perhaps even our efficiency in dealing with it. I share the hon. Gentleman's view and I can assure him that those matters are under consideration.

Mr. Alan Clark: The right hon. Lady has told us that, on Monday, we shall debate the security services. As she knows and as many hon. Members will have heard, Ministers frequently take refuge in the answer that they cannot discuss something because it relates to security matters. Would it be in order to ask a Minister whether the assessments of individual Cabinet members and their possible security risk are submitted in the first instance to the Prime Minister or to Mr. Alastair Campbell?

Mrs. Beckett: I believe that the question about what is in order is not a matter for me, but I suspect that that is not the point that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to make. The role of the Prime Minister's official spokesman is well known. He is highly respected. We all take note of the fact that the Tory party so much dislikes his efficacy in that role that hon. Members do everything that they can to undermine him.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on the ingenuity of that answer. I have two points to raise with her. First, following up a point made earlier, will she reconsider having a free vote at the end of next Thursday's debate so that every right hon. and hon. Member can express an opinion on a report which, in effect, proposes the destruction of our parliamentary system, so that she herself can be free, unfettered and unshackled and can tell us what she thinks about such a monstrous proposal?
Secondly, on a point that will unite the House, I am sure that the right hon. Lady will agree that it is a great pity that we have been unable to debate early-day motion 1647, headed "Speaker's Chaplain".
That this House notes that the Reverend Canon Donald Gray is to retire at the end of the current session after 11 years as Chaplain to the Speaker; pays warm tribute to his years of service to this House both in his formal duties and in his less formal but equally important ministry to honourable Members and staff throughout the House (including his support to the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship); notes also that he and his wife Joyce having made many friends in and outside Parliament, will be greatly missed; and wishes them both many happy and fulfilling years in their retirement.]
The right hon. Lady will know that, this afternoon, Canon Gray conducted Prayers in the House for the last time. Does she agree that it would be appropriate for us all to place on record our great respect for Canon Gray and our profound gratitude for the service that he has rendered to the House, to all right hon. and hon. Members in a pastoral role and to so many of the staff of the House and the other place who have gone to him for counsel and help? He has been an exemplary Speaker's Chaplain and it is appropriate for that to be put on record before we move on to the next business.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman asked me for a free vote at the end of the debate next Thursday. It is not the end of the debate or the discussion; it is very much the beginning. It is certainly my view and that of the entire Cabinet that we would like widespread and thorough debate on the issues raised by the Jenkins report.
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his remarks about the Speaker's Chaplain and for giving me the opportunity—which might not otherwise have been in order—to say how strongly I share his views, which I know are shared by all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Speaker's Chaplain is held in not only great respect but much affection. The hon. Gentleman referred quite rightly to his pastoral role and his work with staff and with right hon. and hon. Members. If one may put it this way, he has adorned the House for a long time and we shall always find Prayers very different and for some time a little strange without him. I hope that he will be aware of how highly he is regarded and certainly, if that were not the case, I hope that it will be now.

BILL PRESENTED

NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AREA (PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSION)

Mr. Michael Fabricant presented a Bill to establish a Parliamentary Commission to investigate the benefits or otherwise of accession by the United Kingdom to the North American Free Trade Area Treaty; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 19 November, and to be printed [Bill 251].

Pet Quarantine

[Relevant documents: The fifth report from the Agriculture Committee of Session 1993–94, on Health Controls on the Importation of Live Animals (HC 347–1, published on 23 November 1994).]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Betts.]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): This is the first parliamentary occasion on which I have had the opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) to his new role as principal Opposition spokesman on agricultural matters and I do so now. I know that he will be a robust opponent on party political issues, but on issues of national importance that transcend party politics, such as the date-based export scheme, I hope that I can count on him as an ally.
Today's debate is not party political, although it involves matters on which people hold very strong views. Since becoming Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, much of my time has been consumed by the specific difficulties faced by farmers and the Government's desire to do what we can to respond; Agenda 2000 and the wider search for common agricultural policy reform; and, of course, the beef export ban, on which I have set myself the target of getting the issue resolved before Christmas. I am absolutely determined that the intense focus on those priorities will not divert me or the Department from our other responsibilities, especially food standards and the protection of the public.
Our quarantine laws, and the case for their modernisation and reform, are one aspect of public protection. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for her having secured Government time for the debate. The views of individual hon. Members are especially important on an issue such as this one, in which there is no obvious party political divide. The British people are internationally famous—or notorious—as animal lovers. We keep pets as part of our families, and we object to forced separation. It is no surprise that the requirement of six months in quarantine for dogs and cats entering the United Kingdom has always been unpopular among pet owners, especially those whose work commitments require them to travel abroad. That has a particular application for the armed services.
There are good reasons for quarantine, however. Rabies is an appallingly unpleasant disease which still causes many deaths in some parts of the world. It is right to take strict precautions against it. I am not willing to recommend to the House anything that puts our population at risk from rabies. Nor am I willing to put to the House anything that would inflict rabies on our wildlife or our pets. There has been no native case of rabies among animals for more than 75 years, and it is 95 years since someone last died of the disease after contracting it here.
We maintained that record during a period in which an epidemic in wildlife made rabies common on continental Europe. It is no longer common, however. A successful campaign is pushing the disease back beyond the frontiers of the present European Union. Western Europe is now


largely free of rabies. There were only 100 cases last year in animals other than bats, compared with 14,000 cases in 1989.
We must also take into account the freedom to travel that people now enjoy. Holidays abroad are part of modern life. In particular, the channel tunnel has made travel easy. Against that background, we must ask whether our arrangements are still justified. In 1971, the Waterhouse committee recommended retention of six months quarantine as a standard requirement. In 1994, the Select Committee on Agriculture had a fresh look at the subject, and it reported that vaccines were available for the prevention of rabies, that blood tests could show whether the vaccine had taken and that microchips could identify whether an animal was the one mentioned in a vaccination or blood test certificate. The Select Committee concluded that
scientific advances since the Waterhouse Report now make it not only feasible, but desirable, for the UK to permit anti-rabies controls based upon vaccination and blood-testing as an alternative to quarantine for pet dogs and cats arriving from other EU countries and all other countries internationally recognised to be rabies-free and carrying out appropriate policies to maintain their rabies-free status".
That report is before us today to help inform our debate.
The then Government welcomed that report, but concluded that the changes proposed were premature. The Conservative Government argued that the eradication programme in the European Union had not been completed. They said that new arrangements for importing traded cats and dogs to the UK were still untested. They said that similar relaxations recently introduced in Norway and Sweden were also untried.
Whatever the case may have been at that time, those objections surely have little force today. Highly respected bodies—including the British Medical Association, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the British Veterinary Association—have argued that the time has come for a re-evaluation.
When we came into office, the Government were aware of strong opposition to quarantine among many pet owners, but aware also of deep fears among those who support the existing system. To help to reconcile those views, my predecessor called for a scientific assessment of the risks that we run under the policy of quarantine and under five other options. It is, perhaps, remarkable that that had not been done previously, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, now the Minister for the Cabinet Office, for his decision. Professor Kennedy chairs the advisory group on quarantine that conducted the review. On 23 September, I published his report "Quarantine and Rabies: A Reappraisal". The report is an excellent and thorough analysis which gives a sound basis for conducting the public debate. I commend it to the House, and am most grateful to Professor Kennedy and all the members of his group.
The essence of the report lies in the first two of its 41 recommendations. It recommends an alternative system for bringing pets into this country from the European Union, European Economic Area and rabies-free islands. For such animals, the alternative system gives safeguards equivalent to quarantine, which would be abandoned for those areas. That would apply both to pets taken from Great Britain to those countries and then returning, and to pets coming into Great Britain from those countries if they satisfy the same conditions.
The key to the new system will be certification showing, first, that the animal is identified by a microchip; secondly, that it was vaccinated against rabies at or over three months of age using an approved vaccine; thirdly, that it has had a blood test to confirm the effectiveness of vaccination carried out at least six months before entry into Britain; and, finally, that it has had treatment against ticks and a parasite no more than 24 hours before entry. The reasoning behind the requirements is well set out in the report. Of course, we shall have to review them in the light of comments on the report, but the basic structure of identification, vaccination, and certification is fundamental to any new system.
In considering the options, the group recognised that even the present system is not risk free, because smuggling clearly occurs. It found that its recommended alternative did not involve any significant increase of risk. It could make no assessment of the impact of smuggling in the modern environment. This is a personal view and not something on which the group felt able to advise me, but I think that some of the incentive to smuggle lies in the six-month period of separation. People do not want to be separated from their pets, and some of them, foolishly and wrongly, decide to try to circumvent the law by smuggling. It logically follows that, if we can find a legal alternative that does not require separation, at least part of the incentive to smuggle will be removed. We are, therefore, providing a further public safeguard, rather than undermining the protection of the public.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: If anyone needs evidence of what is going on with smuggling and its vast scale, particularly in respect of cats and dogs, they need only ask around confidentially in the expatriate English-speaking communities in any capital in Europe. One of the reasons is that to which my right hon. Friend alluded, but there is another: it can cost between 1,000 and £1,500 to put a cat away for 15 months. Most people cannot afford that, which is why they have to smuggle, sad as it is. I look forward to a change in the law because it is desperately needed.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is on the right track. It is difficult to estimate accurately how many pets are smuggled because of the nature of the activity. To judge from anecdotal evidence of the sort that he mentioned, it is a problem and, at least in part, the desire to avoid separation between pet and owner is the motivation. If we can put in place a system that avoids that motivation, we may diminish the amount of smuggling, and, because ours is a tested route, diminish risk to the public.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. While I agree broadly with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), does the Minister accept that the Government need to maintain a system of emergency regulations in the event that an outbreak of rabies occurs in a given geographical area? Will he ensure that, if he goes through with the reforms posited in the Kennedy report, any collection of emergency regulations will not damage activities, such as farming, more than the evil from which protection is sought?
For example, the Government might intend to ban at short notice all animal movements within a given area. That could have a direct effect on horse race meetings and


other equine events, such as Badminton and Burghley by Stamford. While taking every care to prevent the spread of rabies, the Government should not simultaneously damage the economic value of activities involving horses.

Mr. Brown: I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point and thank him for welcoming me to my new position.
The emergency regulations are designed to deal with a rabies outbreak after it has been identified. They do not take into account the source of that outbreak—although the appropriate authorities will prosecute those who caused it. We do not intend to change the emergency procedures for dealing with an outbreak or to alter the criminal sanctions that are already in place regarding smuggling. Those people who attempt to smuggle animals into the country in defiance of the rabies regulations are being very selfish and foolish, and I deplore their actions.
The Kennedy group considered other options, but they were found to carry a greater risk and, therefore, were not recommended by the group. The Kennedy group rejected the option of simply reducing the quarantine period to one month. It did not find a system of identification, vaccination and certification to be a good enough safeguard for pets coming from every country in the world. Indeed, the report advocated European Union action to put adequate controls in place against animals coming from third countries, including the candidate member states. However, it recommended a further study of the number of animals that might come from North America, and a risk assessment in light of that. That seems to me to be a reasonable recommendation.
The group envisaged controls coming into force at the port of entry, and was very clear about the need for proper enforcement. Any scheme that is introduced to parallel existing quarantine rules will rely on enforcement, and I am determined to ensure that enforcement features strongly in any such scheme.
Upon entry, the pet and its certificate would be presented to an official whose sole responsibility would be to check imported animals. Although nothing has been firmly decided in this area, the House will want to know that it is pretty certain—as certain as we can be at this stage—that, if such a scheme were to come into effect, those officials would come from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The official would read the pet's microchip number and check it against the certificate. Provided that they matched and the certificate was satisfactory, the animal would enter the country without further ado.
In order to avoid any doubt, I stress that the Kennedy group did not propose—and the Government would not accept—anything that would imply a green channel whereby animals would be waved through. That is not the proposal on which we are consulting. Animals that failed to meet this simple requirement, for whatever reason, would be quarantined for six months or until such earlier time as their certification was shown to be in good order.
It is important to stress that quarantine would remain the rule not only for pets coming from most countries

outside Europe, but for animals that failed to meet the new requirements in full. If animals failed to meet the requirements, they would go straight into quarantine.

Mr. Alan Clark: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. This may be an appropriate moment to congratulate him on his new position. I was in the House when he made his maiden speech from the Opposition Benches, which roughly coincided with my own debut at the Dispatch Box.
I was interested to hear the Minister say that it would be his Department's staff who monitored compliance with the new regulations or criteria. It is clear that that will be an expensive matter. As he knows, the considerable delay envisaged in the report has been the subject of objections and is a matter of great concern. During his opening speech, will he tell us that he has already started the costing of the arrangements; that he is making allocations in the next public expenditure survey round for his Department's proposed expenditure; that there is a realistic progression of stages leading to the implementation of the new proceedings; and whether those can be accelerated?

Mr. Brown: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to my new duties and thank him even more for having sat through my maiden speech, which was delivered in 1983 at around midnight, if I remember correctly.

Mr. Clark: It was memorable.

Mr. Brown: It did not strike me as being memorable, although I did have one good joke. I have been telling it ever since and it has carried me a long way.
The arrangements will have to be paid for, of course, and I shall talk about costs later in my speech and deal with the main thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's question then. When I referred to the official being a MAFF official, it was not to invite the House to go through the Department's whole budget to see whether existing resources would cover the money to pay that official, but to make the point that the official would be dedicated to that specific duty and that it would not be added to the responsibilities of other officials who have duties at points of entry. The Government will take enforcement extremely seriously.
One of the Kennedy report's most important recommendations is for a large-scale education and publicity programme. Everyone who might use the system, as well as those operating it, will need to know the rules well in advance. Otherwise, people will try to bring in pets that do not qualify and there will be chaos and ill feeling at the point of entry, as pets are refused entry and sent straight into quarantine. The group recognised that the new system could not be brought in overnight and recommended that up to three years be taken to get it up and running. Sites at port should be ready, staff recruited and trained and the public properly informed. I shall return to the issue of timing later.
The group emphasised that its proposals must be viewed against our obligations within the European Union. I am also mindful of our special obligation to


Ireland, with which we have a common land border. I am grateful to the group for covering several detailed aspects that are often left by the wayside when quarantine is discussed.
As to the Government's response to the report, without pre-empting the public consultation, I am sympathetic to the case for change. In the light of the Kennedy report, we cannot maintain the status quo, nor can we any longer argue that quarantine is the only way in which to protect our country against rabies. I do not see how we can keep our current system unchanged when there is a less onerous alternative that gives rise to no greater risk and, indeed, has some advantages over the current system.
The report confirms that we have the scientific knowledge and techniques to take the necessary precautions against rabies. Many have said that before. That is not the key issue, even though some important technical details remain to be settled. The report treads new ground in its emphasis on implementation and the effects of change. It puts that into context through its risk assessment, which helps us to devise a new system and warns of the points to watch. Compliance with the rules is essential to the success of any scheme, but particularly this one.
First, we have to be ready for a vast increase in the number of pets taken to and fro. The report assumes that the number of animals might reach 250,000, rather than the 8,000 that currently go into quarantine. That would be in line with the Swedish experience. Gearing up to deal with that number of animals is a task we cannot afford to underestimate. Secondly, vaccination and blood testing are not infallible. Checking remains important and we shall have to consider how that is best carried out. I am determined that we should remain a rabies-free country with strong safeguards against the disease.
Thirdly, we must be ready for people who are willing to break the law. The report recommends that we should check the certificates of every animal coming into the country and makes further recommendations designed to make enforcement easier and more effective. The problem lies not with pets going to, and coming from, rabies-free countries, but with the difficulty of distinguishing those animals from others that carry a risk. Following up the report will therefore not be a straightforward task.
When we published the report on 23 September, I announced that we were inviting comments by 31 December. We are anxious to have reactions to the proposals. We have already received more than 300 responses from more than 20 countries and expect many more. I welcome today's debate as part of that process.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Brown: The House would probably like to know how the consultation is going. Eighty-seven per cent. of the responses are broadly in favour of change as proposed by the Kennedy report, but not going beyond that; 10 per cent. are opposed to change, mainly on the grounds that they do not have pets and do not want to be placed at any risk by other people's pets, and 3 per cent. made neutral points. I give way to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Mr. Forth: Will the Minister give us his view on paragraph 11.9.1 of the report, which says:
We understand that the Minister may wish the animal owner to meet the cost of any enforcement under any new system",
and goes on to offer observations? It would be useful if he told the House whether he believes that it would be proper and reasonable for the users of the system to pay the full cost and that the cost should not fall on the taxpayer.

Mr. Brown: That is a fair point, which parallels that made by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark). I am about to deal with that matter in terms that will brook no misunderstanding. I assure the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that I shall not equivocate on that issue—because the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not let me.

Mr. Forth: Good man.

Mr. Brown: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for confirming that the Chancellor is a good man. I strongly agree with that.
While consultation continues, we are doing some preparation and taking a hard look at all that would have to be done to put a new scheme in place. We must concentrate on three aspects at this stage. First, there are legal issues to be resolved. We must be sure that what we do is compatible with European Community law. I am keeping the Commission informed of progress in my Department. We also need to consider how we shall link together the three systems that might in future apply: quarantine, the so-called Balai system for traded cats and dogs and the new arrangements for pets based on vaccination and certification. Linked with that is the need to specify certification that we will have to ask other countries to provide.
Secondly, the pet owners who benefit from the new system will have to pay for it. I hope that that is sufficient answer to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea.

Mr. Alan Clark: That is an interesting and perfectly legitimate response. If that is the case, surely the pet owners—the paymasters—can determine to a far greater extent than if cost were a matter for the right hon. Gentleman's Department when the measures will come into force, and plainly they will want that to happen at the earliest opportunity. Since pet owners can no longer be put off by the explanation that the scheme will take a long time to put in place and the provisions must be passed through the public expenditure survey and the Chancellor, surely there are good grounds for accelerating the implementation of the measures.

Mr. Brown: I am keen to do what I can to meet the legitimate aspirations of pet owners, but my primary concern is to protect the country from rabies. The interests of my fellow citizens and public health and safety come first, and within that I shall consider what can be done to meet the legitimate requests of those who own pets and want to take them abroad. Professor Kennedy's report will inform and advise decision making in the Department.
However, the fact that pet owners will have to pay for the new arrangements does not mean that they can set out their terms and conditions. Under the existing system, it


is a requirement not only that pet owners are separated from their pets for six months if they have brought them in from abroad, because of the quarantine requirement, but that they pay for quarantine. The state does not pick up the cost of those arrangements, which can be quite high—£ 1,600.
Currently, anyone who wishes to bring a pet into the country is required to pay. It does not seem unfair and unreasonable, therefore, for the arrangements to continue if the test and the public protection arrangements—and that is what they are—are to operate differently from the quarantine procedures when we deal with the European Union.

Mr. Tim Loughton: Can the Minister confirm the valid point that he is making—that at the moment, there is a cost to the Exchequer of inspections of quarantine kennels and the like, so the present system is costing us in any case?

Mr. Brown: What the hon. Gentleman says is completely right. There is a cost to the Exchequer of kennel inspections, and that cost will continue to be incurred—although its extent might be different under the new arrangements—because Kennedy does not propose, and the Government are not considering, the abolition of quarantine.
Quarantine will remain for animals coming to the UK from countries outside the scheme. It will also be needed for animals brought in by people who believe that their pets comply with the regime, but find that the pets do not. Those pets will go into quarantine, and the obligation will be on the owner to be able to show that the pet can be brought into compliance—perhaps by providing the certificate that they left outside the country—but the effect will be the same. They will have to be able to comply with the new arrangement or the old arrangement will carry on, and I am afraid that they will be charged for it.
The third aspect that the Government will need to consider closely is the question of the time that will be needed to put the new arrangements into place. The Kennedy estimate—three years—seems a long time. I am examining the case for an earlier pilot project—perhaps funded at a premium—to establish new arrangements, or perhaps one covering a limited number of animals. These are early days. I am considering the possibility of speeding up progress—at least for part of the scheme. However, I ask the House not to underestimate what needs to be done. I emphasise that the project is being driven forward by considerations of the safety of the public in the United Kingdom—not by the views of others who will benefit from the project.

Dr. Nick Palmer: Does the Minister agree that, if it is known that quarantine will shortly be abolished for some categories of country, the temptation to smuggle will be much increased in people who—perhaps having served in the Army abroad—have been waiting a long time to return a pet? They will think, "This system will die anyway in a few months, so why

should I go through all that?" If it is possible to accelerate the process for an especially urgent case of that kind, it might help increase security.

Mr. Brown: I do not think that it is fair to describe the desire of individuals to move now and bring their pets with them as urgent in the sense of public policy. I hope that nothing that I say in the House today will give any comfort to anyone who has smuggled animals or is even thinking about it. If they are caught they will be punished, and punishment can involve custodial sentencing. A more likely outcome of today's debate, and the broader understanding that the Government are minded to agree to change and reform, is that those who can adjust their travel arrangements will wait a little to see whether a scheme comes on stream that is more acceptable to them than the existing quarantine arrangements.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the quarantine arrangements are very harsh if they are not strictly necessary for the protection of the public. Professor Kennedy and his group have made a very persuasive case that, at least in the context of the European Union and other rabies-free islands, the case for continuing the existing arrangements is pretty weak. Substitute arrangements will be put in place.

Mr. Brian White: Many rabies-free countries are not islands. Has the Minister considered, in the consultations, including some more of those countries in the scheme?

Mr. Brown: The Government proposal will have to be very area specific when it is set before the House, and I shall consider those questions of nuance when the consultation is finished. However, if I err, it will have to be on the side of the safety of people in the United Kingdom, not on that of people's desire to move their pets around.
I have made a specific comment about arrangements in north America, which is the pretty obvious great exception to what is proposed. Very reasonably, Kennedy asked for a further look to be taken at that, and I find that request very persuasive. Rabies is endemic in wildlife in north America, but those who travel from north America—perhaps to work in this country, for business reasons or to take an extended holiday—are very unlikely to keep a rabid animal in their household as a pet, and veterinary standards in the United States are very high indeed. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that we shall be able to devise a parallel system for north America, but that is for the future.
I shall now discuss arrangements for establishing the new system. We must gear up ports to receive arrivals in a way that is compatible with the rules that we intend to impose. We shall need to install facilities and procedures, which will, I am afraid, slow down pet owners. Currently, ports usually move people through as fast as is compatible with the duties of Customs and Excise and immigration controls. Pet owners will have to do something different from other travellers: there will be a separate official for them to see.
We must tell other countries about the certificates that they may need to provide for those of their nationals who want to bring pets here. We must consider the diseases, other than rabies, that dogs and cats may carry. Moreover,


we want the arrangements to be agreed for the whole of the British Isles, not for Great Britain alone. None of the details to be worked out seem to carry with them insuperable obstacles.

Mr. Robert Key: Eurotunnel and Eurostar got in touch with me today to say that the concept of Eurotunnel was designed specifically with such changes in mind, and that they could implement the regulations very quickly indeed. Eurostar would be delighted to offer its services for a pilot study.

Mr. Brown: That is excellent news, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful suggestion. I shall arrange to get in touch with Eurotunnel and Eurostar through the Department to discover whether we might devise such a scheme. It seems logical that, if one were to set up a pilot project, the terminal at Waterloo and embarkation at Paris would be suitable—but I seem to remember that Eurotunnel also stops at Ashford and Lille, so the latter might be better. As I have shown, the details are best not worked out over the Dispatch Box. There is at least a possibility of a pilot project, which will be explored.
In the meantime, we have no choice but to continue to apply the existing laws; I hope that no one is under any illusions about that. We shall move as fast as we can, depending on the outcome of consultation, but quarantine will stay until we have something as effective to put in its place. Madam Speaker—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker is in the Chair. How easy it is to lose friends in this place! Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for arranging the debate. I know that other hon. Members want to take part. I take the views of Members of Parliament from both sides of the House on such a topic very seriously indeed.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I thank the Minister warmly for the welcome that he extended to me at the start of the debate. I assure him that the Opposition are ready to support any measures that address the acute problems which have arisen in the industries for which his Department is responsible.
I take this opportunity of offering the Minister an apology for mistakenly suggesting earlier this month that he was once a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, a mistake that he hastily pointed out to me. In making that suggestion, I had his own best career interests in mind, because I was seeking, with some difficulty, to find aspects of his early career that he shared with the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, I regret the error.
This is the Minister's first chance to speak in the House since the summer recess started three months ago. It is a matter of some regret that in this, his first debate since the recess in Government time, the subject is quarantine. It is an important subject of course, but I cannot believe that, in House of Commons terms, it is particularly urgent, since the consultation period does not end until 31 December. That will be noted by farmers up and down the country. They will be puzzled—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The reaction of those on the Treasury Bench who are trying to deride this important point is extremely instructive. Farmers throughout Britain will note and be puzzled about why the Government and the Leader of the

House, and possibly the Minister, think it more important for Parliament to discuss quarantine this afternoon than to address the crisis in agriculture, which became so much worse during the parliamentary recess.

Mr. Nick Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about me and for putting the record right. I am not and never have been a member of CND. On the question of the difficulties that the agriculture sector is experiencing at present, I and my Department have been working hard on those very issues and, at an appropriate time, I shall come to the House and have something of significance to say. Farmers are looking not for a debate, but for answers. When I can, I shall come to the House and say what I am able to do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Now that the point has been made about the farmers and it has been responded to, we can go on to quarantine.

Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your guidance. In reverting to quarantine, I would just say that the Opposition are not at all reluctant to debate agriculture, as we hope to do next week. We look forward to the Minister's statement in due course.
The Opposition fully recognise the powerful case for reforming the present laws. Matters have moved on since the previous Government considered the issue. I endorse the Minister's appreciation of Professor Kennedy's report. We fully accept that the onerous restrictions imposed by the current quarantine requirements cause real anguish for many pet owners—for families who have to live abroad for professional reasons and particularly for those in the armed forces who serve this country. For all those people, the system is an extra burden on top of those that they already carry.
We are mindful of the example of Sweden where there is now a certain amount of experience and where the determination to exclude rabies matches our own. We also have the 1994 report of the Select Committee on Agriculture, which reached the clear conclusion that an alternative to the existing arrangements was desirable. I also accept the force of the argument that a change in the regulations will reduce the incentive for owners misguidedly to try to smuggle pets into Britain.
The Opposition will support the removal of the present tight controls subject to two essential conditions. First, the ending of the present restrictions on the movement of animals should not increase the risk that rabies will enter Britain. I warmly welcome the tone in which the Minister has assured us that that is also his concern. Secondly, the practical arrangements needed to make the proposed new system work should be feasible, realistic and watertight and not be a burden on the taxpayer. That point has already been raised by Conservative Members, and the Minister has said that the pet owner will bear the cost of the new system. I am glad that, on this matter, there has been no equivocation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that the Minister's right hon. Friend is equivocating like anything over some other matters which he is no doubt debating with him at the moment.
The question of risk is clearly the overriding consideration, and I have read the relevant chapter in the report. As the Minister said, no responsible Government


would wish to be the instrument by which the country lost the freedom from rabies that it has enjoyed for almost the whole of this century. I do know how concerned the Government are with risks, even with quite small risks, as we have learnt from their imposition of a ban on beef on the bone. That ban was imposed despite the risk of dying from eating beef on the bone being less than the risk of being struck by lightning. The Minister will be familiar with the Opposition's view, which is held as strongly today as when last expressed, that that ban should be lifted.
I assume from what the Minister has said and from my reading of the report that it is the Government's view that, since the risk of eating beef on the bone in the past year was unacceptable, the risks that might arise from ending the current quarantine arrangements—I appreciate that we are not abolishing quarantine altogether, but we would be proposing a substantial relaxation of the arrangements in respect of some countries—are even lower.

Mr. Nick Brown: Strictly speaking, comparing like with like, I cannot truthfully tell the House today that the Government have measured the risks identified in Professor Kennedy's report against the risks of consuming beef on the bone. A direct comparison is not quite so easy as the hon. Gentleman suggests. If he studies Professor Kennedy's report carefully, he will see that the risk assessments cover a pretty wide range.

Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. It is a point to which we might wish to return later. I am sure that the Minister agrees that the emphasis must be on making only those changes that do not impose any measurable risk. One important difference between the two examples in my comparison is that a risk that results from eating something is more or less run knowingly, while a risk from rabies might be outside one's control.
A number of detailed aspects arise with regard to the effectiveness of the practical arrangements proposed. The first concerns the position, which might arise, of a British pet returning to Britain from another EU country. From what I have read and heard so far, I am not clear how the checking station at the port of entry, say, Dover, will know whether, during the time that the animal has spent abroad, it has been outside the EU to a third country that might not be rabies free. It is at least possible that checks on animals re-entering the EU—outside Britain—might be rather less rigorous than those envisaged for the UK. So a UK resident who had a second home in another EU country, as a growing number do, and who might spend a substantial part of the year there, say six months—

Mr. James Paice: Tuscany.

Mr. Yeo: I believe that that is favoured by a number of the Minister's colleagues. If the cat had not mysteriously disappeared from No. 10 Downing street—who knows? —

it might have been favoured with a trip to an expensive villa in Tuscany where it might have received extremely generous hospitality.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: A retirement scheme.

Mr. Yeo: Possibly so. Anyway, a British resident who made an extended visit to another part of the EU might, during the course of that visit, travel from there to a non-rabies-free country, return to the EU country where the second home was maintained, and then return to Britain. I should be interested if the Minister could give assurances about such a situation, which might easily arise.

Mr. Brown: One of the conditions of the scheme proposed by Professor Kennedy is that the animal must be inside the European Union or one of the islands referred to in the scheme for at least six months. It will have to have been vaccinated, the effectiveness of the vaccine will have to have been checked, and the animal will have to be deloused 24 hours before coming in, so that parasites that might carry rabies or other equally damaging diseases will be killed off. The safeguards proposed by Professor Kennedy are severe.

Mr. Yeo: I understand that. I have read the safeguards, and I have a continuing concern about the first one, which stipulates that an imported animal should have been in an EU country for the six months before it enters Britain. I am not clear how that fact will easily be verified at the point of entry into Britain. In trying to avoid the risk that an animal might not have been continuously in the EU for the previous six months, there is a danger that we will effectively be relying on standards at every point of entry into the EU to be as stringent as ours. The consultation is no doubt intended to cover such points. There is a loophole which I hope will be dealt with.
My second concern relates to the possible enlargement of the European Union. If countries where rabies exists were admitted as EU members, how do the Government envisage that the safeguards will be maintained? Can the Minister say whether any of the countries likely to negotiate EU membership are not rabies free? Does he agree that, unless a special system of protection is established, the admission of a non-rabies-free country into the EU could drive a coach and horses through the controls that are envisaged?
In that connection, will the Government publish a list of countries outside the present EU that would qualify as rabies free? The list that is envisaged does not precisely coincide with the list defined by the World Health Organisation as rabies free. It would clearly be helpful to know which countries are envisaged.
My third concern relates to the technology that will be used to identify animals. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) will deal with the matter in more detail in his speech, so I shall flag it up briefly at this stage. I understand that more than one type of microchip is already in use. Is that likely to cause practical difficulties?
Like other hon. Members who will no doubt take part in the debate, I have a constituent who runs a quarantine kennel. Miss Valerie Sheldrake has raised her concerns


with me, one of which relates to the microchip. She suggests that it can move around inside an animal and could be reprogrammed or replaced. I hope that the Government will comment on that risk in due course. Like many other kennel owners, Miss Sheldrake points out that she has invested heavily in the facilities that she provides for quarantine. I hope that the Government will take account of her concern about the future of her own and other people's investments.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of the animals that currently go into quarantine—about 8,000 a year—would still have to do so if the new system were adopted. It is clearly impossible to forecast how many animals will be brought into the country in the future. The Minister referred to 250,000. I assume that, whatever the number, the Government will be flexible about the number of staff needed to maintain the new controls adequately, given the assurance that we have received that the costs will be borne by the pet owners, not by the taxpayer.
The Opposition support in principle the case for a fundamental change to the quarantine laws. We believe that the change should take place only when the legitimate concerns about the risks and the effectiveness of the arrangements proposed have been satisfied. I welcome the way in which the Minister has addressed the problem, and the tone of his comments and his reassurances. We welcome the fact that the consultation is taking place. I hope that that will help to meet the concerns that I have outlined.

Mr. Gwyn Prosser: I add my congratulations and welcome to my right hon. Friend the Minister on his first outing. He might remember coming down to my Dover and Deal constituency three months before the election and introducing me to the now famous pager. Much water has passed under the bridge since then.
One could easily be tempted to treat the subject of quarantine and the potential spread of rabies in an alarmist and emotive manner. I know that, in previous debates in the Chamber, that has happened. I shall avoid that temptation, but we cannot avoid the reality that rabies is, as Professor Kennedy states,
still a horrific disease in animals and man".
That has been acknowledged in the debate.
We should not ignore the fact that, last year, there were more than 100 reported cases of rabies in mammals in EU countries, and more than 3,000 reported cases in central and east European countries. No one would deny the seriousness of the subject, and the need to approach the changes and relaxation of controls with care and consideration. The Kennedy report reflects a measured approach. I am sympathetic to the animal welfare case presented by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
My constituency, Dover, is in the front line in the importation from mainland Europe of animals that might be infected with rabies. Officials in the port of Dover are committed to preventing the illegal importation of animals. East Kent has a significant number of boarding kennels which are licensed to hold animals in quarantine and whose primary business has evolved to meet the Government's requirements in respect of the existing quarantine laws. The vast majority of those kennels meet the high standards of care required of them.
There are some 80 licensed kennels in the United Kingdom. Almost 80 per cent. of those are members of their representative body, the Quarantine Association. The association understands the need for change, and wants the Government to understand the implications for its members' business if the sweeping changes proposed in the Kennedy report are implemented in full.

Mr. White: Given that the number of animals coming through the port would be much larger, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the ironic consequences of introducing the new system might be more animals in quarantine than there are at present, because they would fail the strict conditions laid down by the Government?

Mr. Prosser: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, but we would have difficulty convincing the kennel owners whose businesses go bust over the next three or four years that the proposals contain good news.
The kennel operators want to draw on their considerable experience and make positive and practical responses to the consultation, but they are deeply concerned about the uncertainty that will affect their businesses over the next few years. Kennel owners and their employees are worried about the impact of the changes on their businesses and the consequent loss of jobs. They realise that the present system, which has been in use since the turn of the century, is out of date and needs modernising, but they are anxious that all the necessary infrastructure should be in place before any new arrangements are implemented.
I was a little alarmed to hear suggestions from my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench about accelerated schemes, hurrying up the system and filling the channel tunnel with cats and dogs. We have had the present system for 100 years, and it is less than 100 days since the report was published. We should make a considered response and let the consultation process take its course over the next two months. We should listen to all the arguments, rather than rushing into change under pressure from a few particular lobbies.
While the association realises that the system needs reforming, kennel owners, and their association, have raised a couple of specific concerns. One that has been mentioned this afternoon involves lax border controls. An animal could be taken from one area to another and falsely licensed. The Minister has given some assurance on that in respect of the six-month rule, but we shall have to consider it a little more closely.

Mr. Loughton: I fully appreciate the interests of quarantine kennel owners in the hon. Gentleman's part of the country, but to coin a pun, one does not want to let the quarantine kennel owner's tail wag the animal welfare dog. Can he suggest a scheme allowing the 50 per cent. of quarantine businesses that will be lost under the proposals to receive some form of decommissioning compensation, perhaps along the lines of the scheme for the fishing industry? Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of that, and will he press the Minister for such a scheme?

Mr. Prosser: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated issues that I shall deal with later in my speech.
The second issue is the possibility that an animal owner living in, say, France might do a tour of central and eastern Europe before returning to France and crossing the channel. Can the Minister reassure us about that risk, which concerns proof of residence?
Kennel owners have also voiced concerns about the proposed means of validating incoming animals. Last year, 150,000 pets entered the country through the port of Dover. The bulk of them entered during the busy summer period. There would be major problems in dealing with the increased number that would result from the changes.
The proposals have implications for both airports and sea ports. Dover Harbour Board says that it will be pleased to discuss ways and means of handling any new arrangements, but would have to take a commercial approach to any additional facilities or boat space that it might be asked to provide. It emphasises the need to deal with different ports in different ways.
For instance, the recommendation that there should be a dedicated lane for traffic from ferries to the new inspection facility is simply impracticable for Dover, which is the busiest ferry port in the world. Last year, it handled more than 21 million passengers. It has seven berths with seven carriageways serving each "link span", and incoming traffic is separated from outgoing traffic by a complex arrangement of overhead roadways and underpasses. If one adds to that the squeeze on available land, the extreme difficulty of providing dedicated lanes for travellers with pets becomes obvious. However, the port is happy to explore other options for facilities within the port.
Some kennel owners have suggested alternative options. For example, pets could be removed, under appropriate security, to inland sites such as existing quarantine kennels. That would allow adequate space and time for checks, including, where appropriate, blood tests.
Kennel owners have other practical concerns which they want to put to the Government as part of the consultation process. They are particularly concerned about the uncertainty of the present climate of change, which means that they cannot produce business plans, reassure their staff about their future, or invest in their kennels. They rightly feel, having effectively been an instrument of Government policy for so many years, that, if the Government's change in policy now threatens their existence, it is reasonable to expect some decommissioning funding or other special support to help them either to close their businesses in an orderly way and meet redundancy liabilities or to adjust to the new circumstances.
The Quarantine Association believes that full implementation of the proposals would lose its members some 46 per cent. of the market. If the changes are followed by a relaxation in quarantine regulations in north America, they would lose a total of 79 per cent. of their work. Such a dramatic impact would drive smaller kennels out of business. The association anticipates that fewer than 20 businesses would survive and more than 60 would be driven into bankruptcy.
I urge the Minister to consider all the responses to the report so that he can give due regard to the input from the quarantine kennel industry and its staff. I hope that, as he moves towards decisions that may seriously affect the prospects of hundreds of kennel workers across the land, including my constituents in Dover, he will agree to meet some of their representatives and explore ways to ease their difficulties.

Mr. Roger Gale: May I add my congratulations to the Minister of Agriculture on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box and on introducing this debate in such a non-partisan way? I fully understand the caveat that a significant number of agricultural issues need to be debated in the House, but it would be wrong of any of us to suggest that the issue is not of considerable concern to many people in the United Kingdom, as well as UK expatriates. The attention that the matter is at last receiving is long overdue.
As the Minister reminded the House, Sir Jerry Wiggin introduced the Agriculture Select Committee's report in 1994, when he was Chairman of that Committee. It said that the current quarantine system could no longer be justified and change was clearly overdue. At that time, the all-party parliamentary animal welfare group, which I had the privilege to chair, made it plain that we supported that view, and we have pressed for change ever since. I am delighted that the Parliamentary Secretary, who will wind up the debate, is in the Chamber because he has been a doughty fighter in the cause of change. I hope that my saying that does not embarrass him.
As the Minister said, the status quo is no longer an option. Even in the best quarantine kennels, quarantine is inhumane, to a large extent ineffective, and unnecessary. That is not to say that those of us who support change do not recognise the clear warnings that have been issued and the need to ensure that whatever replaces the quarantine system is every bit as secure as the current system. In that regard, the proposal by Professor Kennedy in his excellent report is not only as secure, but is arguably better.
It has already been said that significant numbers of animals are believed to be smuggled into the country by an increasing variety of means. It may originally have been by private yachts, but latterly it is by cross-channel ferry and, most recently, through the channel tunnel. We are led to believe that it is relatively easy for somebody who wishes to bring an animal into the UK illegally and to avoid quarantine to secure the services of a veterinary surgeon in northern France to have a cat or dog anaesthetised. It can then be put into the boot of a car with a blanket thrown over it, and it will not miaow or bark as it enters the country. We all know that, given the volume of traffic that now comes across the channel, the chances of detection are extremely remote. That is clearly going on, so to suggest, as some do, that the current system is somehow foolproof is very wide of the mark.
There is a tremendous incentive to smuggle animals into the country. The financial penalty of putting an animal into quarantine is £1,500 to £2,000 per animal, and many families have more than one animal. That is a great deal of money to spend for six months. That is not the animal lover's prime concern. What is, especially for the owner of a relatively elderly animal, is the animal's welfare. The owner desires not to be parted from that cat or dog for six months, so, because the animal lover knows that the animal is healthy, there is tremendous incentive to skirt round the rules, in the knowledge that no real harm will be done. However, there is always the danger that harm will be done and what Professor Kennedy is suggesting will therefore probably enhance rather than weaken the existing position.
As an honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association, I attended its annual congress this year. It will not surprise hon. Members to learn that, following publication of Professor Kennedy's report, this issue was a major topic of discussion throughout the three days. The then president of the association made his view plain, and he represents the view of a considerable number of veterinarians, which we should not ignore. Although they are reasonably content for there to be change, they urge haste with caution.
We must put the proper safeguards in place. If something goes horribly wrong, the veterinarians will be right at the sharp end, dealing with the problem. It is therefore not entirely surprising that they, more than some others, are expressing concerns, but whereas they were cautious about the quality of vaccines, the efficacy of blood testing and the reliability of microchips when Sir Jerry Wiggin's Agriculture Committee report was published in 1994, they are now satisfied on all those counts.
Veterinarians are now concerned that implementation is secure, and that the facilities, the trained personnel and the checks and balances are in place to make sure that the system works as Professor Kennedy intends it to. That is a major shift in the opinion of those to whom we should listen most—people in the veterinary profession.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser). He represents a significant number of quarantine kennels, which are used by my constituents and many others using the channel ports, and I fully understand his desire to represent those interests. There is a significant concern here. It is not so long ago that a television programme "exposed" the Dover and Folkestone quarantine kennels. That was especially unfortunately, as the hon. Gentleman will endorse, because the kennels had changed ownership by the time that the programme was transmitted. The new owners were attempting to clean up the act, invest in and improve the facilities, and bring those kennels up to standard.

Mr. Prosser: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the exposéprogramme on Channel 4 was filmed the day after the exchange had taken place? Since then, the new owner, whom I spoke to this morning, has invested more than £90,000 in cleaning up the kennel's act, making it respectable and achieving a caring arrangement. He is a animal lover and a pet owner. He says that he is in it purely for the love of the animals; I will not extend that argument too much, but he is dedicated to providing a careful and proper service.

Mr. Gale: I am very aware of all those things. I visited the kennels, and I hope and believe that I sought the hon. Gentleman's permission before I did so. He has put it clearly on the record that premises change hands, but there is another point.
The hon. Gentleman, having visited those kennels and the catteries, will be aware that there is an on-going programme of investment. I am concerned that, if we do not get a move on and the signals are not clear, and if provision is not made for the quarantine kennel owners, we shall effectively achieve planning blight—legislative blight, in this case.
What kennel or cattery owner will invest more in facilities that he or she believes may be redundant within two or three years? My fear is that, unless we move much

more swiftly than has been suggested, standards will deteriorate and, as a consequence, animal welfare in quarantine kennels across the country will deteriorate. Owners simply will not be able to afford to invest, and what bank or lender would lend money to the proprietor of a business that is going to go out of business?
Although I do not seek to over-represent their cause, I believe that quarantine kennel and cattery owners have just cause to look to the House to secure their interests. They have been, effectively, acting on behalf of the Government, doing the business and the bidding of the regulatory process. People such as me have called on them to invest more, raise their standards and make sure that the animals in their care are well cared for. Having done that, we now have a responsibility to them.
As I suggested to the Quarantine Association a couple of years ago, it is possible to look to Europe, because we shall effectively be harmonising our regulations with those throughout the rest of the European Union, to allow freer movement of animals. If we are to do that, there is no reason why the EU should not look favourably, as it has on other agriculture issues, at what would be a modest contribution in European budgetary terms but what would be significant to the owners in terms of compensation for likely loss of business.
I want the process to be speeded up. I do not believe that it is necessary to take three years to get moving, and I am pleased that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is already considering staffing costs and ways of bringing the process forward. It should be possible to introduce a pilot scheme swiftly—not at the channel tunnel, but at either the port of Ramsgate or the port of Dover, as I proposed two years ago.
Four years ago, we proposed a pilot scheme on this basis: initially, but not for ever, quarantine kennel owners should collect animals from the port and take them to their kennels to hold overnight for blood tests and identification checks. There could be a problem at the ports. I do not want to make too much of another issue, but the port of Dover and other ports will be faced with the ludicrous imposition by Brussels, with the support of the Member of the European Parliament for East Kent, of the passenger registration system. That will cause interminable delay when it is introduced, and, not a green channel, but a channel for people with animals, would also cause severe delay.
I believe that the Minister could say now that those who can demonstrate, as Professor Kennedy requires, that their animals have been vaccinated, blood tested and microchipped should be able immediately to take advantage of such a system, provided that they are prepared to put their animals into quarantine kennels for a brief holding period while blood tests and identification checks are carried out. That would mean that we could take the heat out of the risk that was highlighted earlier and start immediately, rather than wait and risk further smuggling.
I go further: there is no reason whatever—my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) may want to touch on this—why, given the services of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps, service men serving overseas should not immediately be allowed to embark down this road.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: I want to clarify a point. The hon. Gentleman suggests that animals should be blood tested on arrival in the United Kingdom.


I thought that the idea was that they should be blood tested six months before, and that a microchip should be inserted. They would then have to go through a process similar to the use of a bar code in a supermarket.

Mr. Gale: The hon. Lady is right: that is Professor Kennedy's intention, and I am sure that that is what we shall arrive at. I am suggesting an interim measure to allow a pilot scheme to begin immediately, without the full ramifications of having to appoint and train staff and build and provide holding facilities at ports. If we have to wait for all that, there will inevitably be considerable delay.
I am suggesting to the Minister a way of getting this process up and running now without having to wait. If he can do that, it will enable him and his colleagues and veterinarians to study the process in practice. It will allow systems to be established for identification, vaccination and blood checks, and it will enable parasitology measures to take place, which are important as we are dealing with other problems as well as rabies. The sooner the Minister can get on with the job, the better, and I hope that he will be able to do so.

Mr. Colin Pickthall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on his exemplary introduction to the debate. From what he said, I am sure that the process will be dealt with cautiously and in great detail. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) apologised to my right hon. Friend, who was not a member of CND. If the hon. Gentleman is looking for targets, I am a minor one, because, like the Prime Minister, I was a member of CND. Unlike the Prime Minister, I still am a member—at least, I think so, because it seems to have given up collecting subs in the past few years.
I am glad of the opportunity to speak in favour of the recommendations in the Kennedy report—I have one or two minor reservations—and to congratulate his advisory group on the thoroughness of its work. It is remarkable how similar its central proposals are to those made by the Select Committee on Agriculture back in 1994, of which I was a member. There was a debate in the Chamber on 13 July 1995—some six months after the report. It is surprising that my speech and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), the Minister and the Chairman of the Select Committee, Sir Jerry Wiggin, if they had been made again today word for word, would have been directly germane to the discussion of the Kennedy report.
A couple of weeks ago, my good friend, Mrs. Mary Rees, the chairman of Lathom parish council in my constituency, told me that she was still nervous about the prospect of rabies. A decade or so ago, when it became clear that the channel tunnel was an inevitability, she expressed deep foreboding, in whatever forum she could find, about rabies entering the country. She had worked out that a fox can travel about 25 miles in a night, so, within 10 days, a rabid continental fox could be in Lathom—where, of course, it would want to go.
The Select Committee visited the channel tunnel before it was opened. We went inside it and saw that it was the one entry point where it was impossible for animals to come in unless they were deliberately smuggled in. It is ironic that there may be a pilot scheme through there, given that the company spent £20 million on defences against animals being brought into the country through the channel tunnel.
The fact that Mary Rees is still worried, and no doubt reflects the worries of many thousands of British people, shows the deep-seated and instinctive fear that rabies inspires.

Mr. Key: Has the hon. Gentleman pointed out to Mary Rees the evidence on page 224 of the report, which suggests that even she may not have to worry too much about this matter? It states:
if 1000 dogs are imported each year one would expect that on average a dog incubating rabies might enter the country once every 1250 years.

Mr. Pickthall: Mary Rees is an elderly lady, but not quite that old. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, and I shall point that out to her to ease her mind.
As I said, there is a deep-seated and instinctive fear about rabies in this country, which, to all intents and purposes, has been rabies free for a century. That fear was reflected in the evidence given to the Select Committee in 1994 by the then Minister for Agriculture, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). She was always meticulous in her evidence to the Committee. In answer to specific questions, she said:
there would be, rightly, an enormous outcry if a relaxation of the system that we already have resulted in an outbreak of the disease".
Of course there would. She said:
at this stage I am not persuaded that there should be further moves … I still believe that the overwhelming public view is that rabies is dangerous and frightening and that this"—
quarantine—
is the best, most effective way of preventing its outbreak in this country".
She rightly said:
it is an appalling disease, both for animals and for human beings. I would certainly not want to move in any direction that increased the likelihood of the incidence of rabies in this country.
That is almost exactly the phrase that my right hon. Friend used.
I am quoting the right hon. Lady's perhaps over-cautious responses because they articulated the emotional response of citizens such as Mary Rees. They also more or less articulated my own feelings at the start of the Select Committee inquiry four years ago. Like most of the Committee members, I had a strong prejudice in favour of quarantine. It seemed to me that quarantine took advantage of our island status, it was a sensible bulwark against a horrible disease and it appeared to work. I believed that removing quarantine would seriously undermine public confidence. With the exception of Sir Jerry Wiggin and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), the Committee shared that prejudice at the start of the inquiry.
By the time that the then Minister gave her evidence to the Committee at the end of its deliberations, we were unanimous in our belief that the alternatives to quarantine


were infinitely preferable. Most of us had made a substantial U-turn on the basis of the evidence that we had heard. We were convinced beyond reasonable doubt, and we remain so.
We thought that the submission of our report to the Government made that crystal clear, but the then Minister's view prevented further action. It is important that Governments, for the most part, go with the grain of public opinion, especially on such big, emotive issues. However, there are occasions—this was, and still is, one of them—when Governments should take a lead in explaining why an emotional reaction of historic proportions must be tempered by hard evidence and new science.
The previous Government failed on that count, and I am more than pleased that my right hon. and hon. Friends have encouraged the public education process by setting up the reappraisal under Professor Kennedy. I also congratulate the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, members of the armed forces, Passports for Pets, the all-party committee and the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who has been meticulous member of that committee. Since 1994, they have taken part in an unwavering programme of public education on the alternatives to quarantine. I believe that that has made strong inroads into public prejudices on the issue. The public are not quite so terrified of possible alternatives to quarantines as they were four years ago.
The central reason why I changed my mind during the inquiry had nothing to do with sympathy for pet owners. Although I do sympathise with them, if the balance were between their natural attachment to their pets and the possibility of rabies, there would be no contest. My main concern, and that of my colleagues, was to recommend the best possible way of maintainin the United Kingdom's rabies-free status. The costs of quarantine, in both financial and emotional terms, were shown to be so huge as positively to encourage the smuggling of animals. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington and the hon. Member for North Thanet both put that point forcefully.
We became more than ever conscious of our vast and indented coastline, with its thousands of small harbours, and the huge increase in the use of small leisure craft and even business craft. Of course the alternatives recommended by the Select Committee, and refined and amplified by the Kennedy committee—vaccinations, blood tests, identification by microchip, health certificates and passports—involve costs, but nothing like the costs of quarantine to the individual concerned.
Whereas quarantine tempts otherwise honourable and honest people to smuggle—dishonest people will always smuggle: it is their business—the alternative gives those same people an incentive not only to comply with reasonable regulations, but to maximise the monitoring of their animals' health. The case for the alternatives to quarantine is not a sentimental response to the emotional ties of owners and pets, nor is it about helping the tourist trade. It is about positively improving our protection against rabies.
As I have said, the case for the Kennedy recommendations was effectively made four years ago, and I think that it was approved by most hon. Members on both sides of the House who followed the issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) and my hon. Friend the

Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), the Parliamentary Secretary, made their general support for the alternatives clear before the last general election. For four years, the case has been examined, in public and in the trade press, and the Kennedy report has now set it out very clearly.
That brings me to one problem that I have with the report's recommendations, which others have mentioned and on which I shall be interested to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister. In recommendation 15, the advisory group said that the new system should not be adopted for, perhaps, three years. I agree with what has been said so far: surely that is much too long a delay. Of course time is needed to get the system right, to train staff, to inform the public and to organise premises, but I should have thought that could be achieved in a time nearer to one year. If the Government really feel that the whole scheme cannot be up and running until 2001, would they consider introducing pilot schemes as soon as possible—as the hon. Member for North Thanet suggested—in two or three ports of entry? Perhaps Dover should not be one, but Liverpool might do. It is rather a long way away, but it needs the jobs. My right hon. Friend the Minister seemed quite sympathetic to that idea.
Perhaps there should also be a pilot scheme at Heathrow—which is already fairly well equipped for the purpose—so that we can see how the system works, and meet the training requirements in the report. There is no point in beginning to train people if there is nowhere for them to be trained and, if we have pilot schemes, it may be possible to provide the necessary facilities.
I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could interpret the recommendations on European harmonisation in paragraphs 10.5.5 and 10.5.7. I understand our legal obligations under the treaty of Rome and so on, but I fear that—unless I have misread those recommendations—we might create a bit of a pickle. In its summary, the advisory group recommends
that the Minister introduce the new system specifically and explicitly as a transitional system".
That is fine. It also recommends
that the Minister simultaneously seek to promote a harmonised EU system of controls against rabies which will reflect the concerns and meet the needs identified in our recommendations.
That is a two-track business. Thirdly, the advisory group recommends
that, until rabies has been effectively eradicated from the EU and appropriate EU-wide measures put in place in respect of animals to be imported from third countries where rabies is endemic (including the candidate countries of eastern Europe), the Minister should, if necessary, seek a derogation from a harmonised EU system to allow checks to take place at British points of entry.
Unless I have misread the proposals, we could end up with a wish-mash of systems—for which the Government would be responsible—that in some ways contradicted each other. That could create more of a worry among kennel owners who still have some part of their business to run over the next few years.
Nevertheless, the report offers great promise. It confirms the strongly held belief of many that the existing system of quarantine is no longer the best way of dealing with the inward movement of animals from what are virtually risk-free countries. Its proposals would establish a much stronger and fairer system, while maintaining powerful safeguards—in fact, the same safeguards—against the entry of animals from risky countries. That is


only a personal opinion, but I think that we should class the United States and Canada as risky countries until they can be conclusively proved not to be.
Incidentally, the implementation of the proposals would be an enormous relief for thousands of individuals, especially in the armed forces, whose jobs necessitate their living abroad with their families and moving back and forth. It would also help the tourist trade at the margins—although I must say that I contemplate the prospect of thousands of foreign tourists arriving with their dogs with no pleasure at all.
Those last two factors, however, are bonuses. The main point of the Kennedy recommendations is safety and common sense. Parliament, and the Government, have a duty to sell them to those in the United Kingdom, such as Mary Rees, who have a deep and abiding fear that quarantine has so far helped to allay. It is our duty to explain in detail that the new measures will constitute a better, not a weaker, system of control.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) performed a service by reminding us so lucidly of the background to the Agriculture Committee's deliberations in 1994, and the reasons—which he gave fairly and coherently—why it reached its decisions and its vantage point.
The Minister described himself as sympathetic to the Kennedy report—I hasten to add that Professor Kennedy is no relation—and his stance has been broadly echoed in the House. This is one occasion—another may be next week's agriculture debate, which will arise from a Conservative motion—when the Conservative spokesman and I can make common cause. Given another issue that is being dealt with outside the House today, perhaps we are all into constructive opposition—on this issue, if not on others.
I agree with the fairly consensual points that have been made about changes to the quarantine system. However, although concern has been expressed about the timing, we should bear in mind the fact that the present system has been in place since 1901, and has been stupendously successful. Parliament is right to tread with caution, given the horrendous down side—rabies—which is the alternative to the status quo. But, as the hon. Member for West Lancashire said so persuasively, given the costs of quarantine—which are undoubtedly driving some people into illegal activity—it is surely the lesser of two evils to opt for a system that is likely to deliver than to stick with a system that, at least potentially, is delivering less well. That is the balance of probability that should commend itself to the House.

Dr. Tonge: I remind my hon. Friend that many pet owners act responsibly and vaccinate their pets—which would thus qualify for a pet passport or microchip—but still have to pay quarantine costs to kennels. I am particularly reminded of my constituents, the two dogs Whisky and Soda, who have already suffered six months' quarantine for this country after their master dealt with Hong Kong. They could easily have to go through the

process again if their master, useful man that he is, is sent to Europe in another role. I make a plea to the Minister to remember Whisky and Soda.

Mr. Kennedy: Anyone who knows my personal habits knows that I am always willing to defer to whisky and soda, although not necessarily of the canine variety. My hon. Friend makes a telling point, which has been well trailed through the national and international press by her constituent, Mr. Chris Patten, although what she says may be a strong argument not to offer him a job at the EU Commission. However, I shall not stray too far down that road.
Joking aside, it was useful that someone with a high public profile was able to draw attention to the sense of frustration that so many people have felt as a result of the current arrangements. Indeed, that is partly what lay behind the Kennedy committee proposals.
It is obviously extremely important that documentation and vaccination requirements are met. Proper border controls are also important in preventing unprotected animals from entering the country, and that relates to monitoring generally.
Hon. Members have mentioned kennel owners, and gun control may be a more valid comparison than fisheries decommissioning policy in this case. When, under the new Government, the House passed primary legislation on guns, we dealt with the issue of compensation for those who would lose out in terms of business. I accept that the comparison is not ideal, but there is a legitimate argument that the Government should consider those people with businesses that carry out, albeit privately, a Government agency function and who, as a result of primary legislation, may be financially disadvantaged.
I take this opportunity to make a plea for those people who have to use guide dogs—there is a strong case for exempting them from the current rules on travel outwith this country. I expect that all hon. Members have heard from constituents who have found themselves in farcical situations when travelling abroad on holiday. They have discovered—in some cases, not even at the point of exit from this country but when they have been in transit—that they were not to be allowed to have their guide dogs with them on arrival. That is a bizarre state of affairs for people who are self-evidently dependent on a guide dog for access and mobility and for their capacity to enjoy visits to the continent or elsewhere abroad. I hope that the Government will be particularly sympathetic, even under the current arrangements, to the rights of disabled people, especially those who use guide dogs.
As has been clear from this debate, the House is generally supportive of the Government's stance on the Kennedy recommendations, and I hope that we can make further legislative progress on the matter sooner rather than later.

Ms Jenny Jones: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) mentioned the fact that people with guide dogs have faced great problems in travelling abroad because of the quarantine laws. That point has been raised in the considerable postbag—more than 100 letters—that I have received on this subject from my constituents. All those who have written have been in


favour of the Kennedy recommendations, and some have gone further, wanting quarantine to be ended immediately, although I do not go along with that view.
There has been consensus in this important debate and I, too, welcome the Kennedy report and its recommendations. A review of quarantine is now long overdue, not least, as the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) argued, on animal welfare grounds. We can debate quarantine reform because veterinary science has developed to such an extent that there is a viable alternative to quarantine—vaccination, blood testing and microchipping.
We also have a far greater knowledge of animal behaviour and the effects of the long-term separation of animals from their owners. Indeed, it has been known for some time that dogs can develop behavioural problems as a result of being separated from their homes and owners. Now, however, we own far more cats than dogs; we seem to be turning into a nation of cat owners, of whom I am one. I have owned cats for 35 years—

Dr. Palmer: Hear, hear.

Ms Jones: My hon. Friend says, "Hear, hear."
I regard myself as a responsible owner, and the House may be interested to hear that I made electoral history last year as the first Member of Parliament to choose to be photographed not with the nearest and dearest of my family—my husband and son—but with one of my kittens. What greater commitment could anyone have to a pet?
There has been a great deal of research into the behaviour of cats, and it has been discovered that cats suffer far more than dogs in quarantine. Two of the saddest letters that I have received were from constituents explaining how their pets had died in quarantine, not from rabies or parasitic diseases from abroad, but, after about four months in a kennel and a cattery respectively, from diseases caught from the other animals.
There is nothing sadder than having to part from one's pet when it has to be put in quarantine. Pet owners do not want their pets to return to this country with rabies, but they do not want them to die from another disease that has been picked up in this country. Now that there is a real alternative to quarantine, the animal welfare argument should be given due weight in our consideration of the Kennedy report.
Until we manage to eradicate rabies worldwide, there will always be a risk that it could get into this country. I have long thought that our analysis of where the risk lies has been wrong. We have assumed that people will get rabies from pets brought in from abroad, but more and more Britons travel abroad to countries that have rabies—the House of Commons Library came up with the figure that a quarter of summer holidaymakers from Britain regularly travel to Turkey, the United States of America, Kenya and other countries that are known as rabies black spots—so rabies is more likely to be brought back here by someone who, perhaps through lack of caution, has been bitten by a rabid animal abroad.
Every time I go abroad on a ferry, I am struck by the emotive posters warning of the dangers of rabies from bringing pets into the country, but I wonder how much information is given to those travelling to countries where there is known to be a risk. We should consider an

education campaign aimed at travellers, because we must reassess the source of the risk of rabies ever getting back into this country, which of course we all hope will not happen.
Moving from quarantine to vaccinating, blood testing and microchipping will certain mean upheaval, but, since 1994, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has accepted that animals imported for sale can come in on the vaccination rather than the quarantine route, so we clearly already have the beginnings of that way of controlling rabies.
Three years will be too long a delay. I agree with those who have suggested a pilot scheme based on vaccination in one of our ports where animals come in, in line with the European Union directive. That should be started within a year.

Mr. Eric Forth: In all fairness, I should declare an interest at the outset. My dear, beloved mother-in-law, who lives in the United States, is deterred from visiting this country frequently by our existing excellent quarantine provisions. I must stress that that is not the reason why I intend to argue in favour of keeping the existing regime.
Nor, indeed, is my main reason for expressing severe reservations about the proposals the fact that we have an alarming degree of consensus in the House. I have an instinctive suspicion of consensus, especially when it is cosy. Many of us recall that, when there is almost complete agreement on something in the House, we often end up with a disaster. I need not give a catalogue, as hon. Members of all parties will be familiar with what I have in mind.
There is no harm in some dissent being expressed on an occasion such as this, if only for the sake of pointing out some aspects that have not yet been covered. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will not take it amiss when I express my regret at the absence of the Minister of State. When I raised the matter of conditions other than rabies in a debate on the Animal Health (Amendment) Bill—an excellent little provision with the total support of the House, including me, because it was relevant to standards of quarantine provision—the Minister of State said:
it is a myth that quarantine is all about rabies. The pressure mounted by lobby groups to abolish the quarantine laws ignores all the other issues raised in the New Scientist article to which the right hon. Gentleman"—
that was a reference to me—
referred. We should therefore not rush to judgment on that issue. It is not a question of not wanting to be the Government who let rabies into the country. This matter goes well beyond rabies, to issues such as climatic change and bugs discovered in quarantine cells."—[Official Report, 27 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 851.]
That gave me the impression that the Minister of State had a balanced view. I would not dream of implying that the Minister of State's absence has any significance.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I am glad to explain that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has an important engagement this evening and tomorrow for the official opening of the cattle traceability scheme, for which he has responsibility. All of us as


Ministers have spent a great deal of time talking to, and paying attention to, different people and organisations throughout the country, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that my hon. Friend has important duties to perform. His absence is not due to any particular view on the issue. As the right hon. Gentleman said, his view is perfectly balanced and in line with the Government's position on the Kennedy report.

Mr. Forth: I am delighted to hear that the Minister of State is balanced. That is a great reassurance to us all.
My primary reservation can be characterised, rather inelegantly, under the heading, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". We have had some interesting exchanges along those lines, and of course I am not saying that the existing quarantine arrangements are perfect or foolproof. Frequent reference has been made to the likelihood that animals have been smuggled into the country to get around the regulations, and I do not doubt that that happens, but the existing regime is simple, straightforward and easily understood, and those important virtues should not be overlooked.
There is a parallel with the argument, which was started today, about the virtues of first past the post—an electoral system that is elegant, simple and easily understood—as against the nonsense of the proposals of the partial Jenkins commission, which are bizarre and incomprehensible. That may remind us of the proposals in the Kennedy report. The existing regime has the strength of simplicity.
My next point is particular to me, and I expect few people to accept it. To my mind, the proposals to do away with our present arrangements are yet another diminution of the concept of the territoriality of the British Isles and the United Kingdom, and yet another example of the way in which proposals are made to reduce the significance of our borders and our nation as it has been historically understood.

Dr. Palmer: Does the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's position not suggest that we should introduce quarantine for foreign humans?

Mr. Forth: I am always open to any such helpful suggestion. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I could get together and work on that one. I can think of many foreign humans who are extremely undesirable and whom I would not want here unless they had a microchip inserted, were vaccinated and were otherwise identified.
My point is unashamedly political. Each time we move in the direction of the Kennedy report, we reduce the possibility of continuing to identify ourselves as a separate nation with border controls that have always been, to my mind, an important part of nationhood and national identity. I regret that, and believe that it is an important consideration that should not be cast lightly aside.
My main objection arises from my doubts about the safety and integrity of the process that is suggested. I had some research done into the incidence of rabies in Europe, the European Union, the European Economic Area—the European continent as a whole—which came up with some fascinatingly different figures. For example, figures relating to the first quarter of 1998 suggest that, in Europe

as a whole continent—charmingly put—1,711 cases were reported in domestic animals. Another set of figures suggests that, in Europe as a whole, there were 2,257 cases. I think that that was for a whole year for domestic animals. Referring to the most recent quarter, a publication rather charmlessly called "RABNET" states:
During 'This Quarter', 1711 rabies cases were reported in Europe".
It then gives details for different countries.
The relevant point was made earlier that, whatever the position in the European Union as constituted—rabies is still endemic in certain parts of the EU—there is a considerable degree of endemic rabies in the countries that it is proposed to bring into an enlarged EU. That suggests that a risk element is involved, perhaps not so much in the existing EU as in an EU enlarged as proposed. I hope that the Government will weigh that up carefully when they consider the effectiveness, efficacy and safety of the proposed regime against the background of the incidence of rabies and the degree of increased land travel that is bound to take place across greater Europe, if I may thus characterise it.

Mr. Loughton: Would my right hon. Friend concede that, according to the figures for last year, there were apparently only 12 cases in the whole of greater Europe, as he calls it, of humans contracting rabies, of which none ended in death? Of those 12 cases, 10 came from the Russian Federation, one from Lithuania and one from within the EU—France.

Mr. Forth: That is reassuring, but I am not sure whether it is reassuring enough for us to introduce an element of greater risk, if indeed that were involved in a change of regime. I do not know whether the elderly lady constituent of the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) would be reassured by that. To reassure her and many like her is an important part of this whole debate.
The British Veterinary Association has been mentioned. I have here a news release issued by it in which the BVA vice-president, Mr. Ted Chandler, said:
The present quarantine policy has served this country well over many years and while it is indeed true that the science is now available to justify a new approach in theory, the capacity and commitment to enforce a new system in practice is quite another matter. Neither the Government nor the profession should be under any illusion that new laws and a new system of rabies control can simply be created, brought in and made to work. If as a result of change rabies were to be introduced to this country, there would be the most serious consequences for all involved.
If and when the Government takes a decision to change, consult and subsequently legislate, there must be no short cuts on enforcement. There can be no compromise on professional vigilance and there must be no collapse of public confidence. The task for Government is daunting. The aim of the veterinary profession must be to support only those changed procedures which meet their scientific criteria and are capable of being enforced.
I quoted that news release at some little length because the views of the veterinary profession are important. If the Government are to make the changes that are proposed in the report, it is important to make absolutely sure that the vets are fully on board, not only because their views matter, perhaps more than any other single group of people, but because they and their professional colleagues in this country and, more important, abroad will be crucially involved in making the proposals work.
My greatest reservation arises for the following reason. Throughout the debate, it has been claimed that the present quarantine arrangements, because they are expensive and unpleasant, deter people from using them and encourage smuggling. The animal welfare point has been made by many who have contributed. I looked at the proposals in the report with growing disbelief and asked myself these questions. Is it likely that people who wish to take their pets abroad and bring them back will go through the process described in the report? Will microchips be implanted in those pets? Will people have their pets vaccinated? Will the pets have the required blood test before re-entry at a laboratory approved by the United Kingdom? Will such laboratories be handy and close enough for people easily to fulfil that requirement? Will they get the treatment 24 hours before re-entry for the conditions other than rabies that are mentioned—I am glad that they are mentioned—in the report? What about the person who has to change plans at the last minute and is faced with the choice either of finding somewhere for the treatment or of taking the risk of smuggling the pet back into the United Kingdom?
The requirements for certification involve finding a competent authority, filling out a single sheet of paper, having a unique identification number and a qualified veterinarian. The report rather quaintly states, although I understand why, that black ink must not be used. That is presumably so that the paper cannot be easily photocopied or forged. The more I thought about that exhaustive and exhausting list of requirements, the more I wondered whether it would be likely that even the most devoted, dedicated pet owner who did not wish to fall foul of the new regime could fulfil all those requirements in all reasonable circumstances. I think not.
My worry is that, if we make the proposed change, having persuaded ourselves of the disadvantages of the present regime, the new regime would be more bureaucratic, more complicated and more difficult in many ways for pet owners to adhere to. Therefore, in the end, it may not have anything like the desired effect. We may end up with a worse system than the one that we have. As is traditionally said in these cases, I hope that I am proved wrong.
I am worried that so many people are rushing to embrace this proposal so whole-heartedly without expressing sufficient concern about its complexities, its bureaucratic nature and the likelihood that it will deter people from ensuring, as we all wish, that animals are free of rabies and other unpleasant conditions and that those conditions are not brought into this country. For that reason and the others that I have given, I remain to be convinced.

Mr. Andrew Reed: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who made some pertinent points in his valuable contribution. He is right to say that there is always a danger of rushing into changes. The context of my speech, however, will be in total opposition to what he has said. Nevertheless, it is vital that we hear such opinions because many of our constituents feel the same. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said earlier, 10 per cent. of the respondents to the consultation at this stage have expressed some opposition.
When I received my first correspondence saying that a constituent wanted to see me at my surgery about passports for pets, I was reminded of a story told by a Conservative Member. He said that at his first surgery, somebody wanted to extend the franchise to the canine variety. His constituent thought that he had rather an intelligent dog and that the franchise should be extended to it.

Dr. Palmer: Was its name Whisky?

Mr. Reed: I think that they were called Whisky and Soda.
I was more fortunate as my constituent explained the reasons for the passport for pets scheme. I was more than happy to listen and to take the arguments on board. During the past 12 months or so, I have become quite deeply involved in the issue. We need to reassure our citizens that whatever replaces the current scheme is satisfactory and, more importantly, maintains the United Kingdom as a rabies-free zone.
The case for ending quarantine has been made forcefully this evening and it is not necessary for me to repeat all the arguments. However, I support the need for change in the cost to the individual as £1,000 to £1,500 is rather expensive. For many people it is a substantial sum to find in one go. Many people love their animals and pets play a vital role in their lives, as my constituency case demonstrates.
The welfare issue is important and has been touched on in the debate. The figures suggest that, even if we included the United States in the scheme, some 29 per cent. of animals entering the country would still need to be kept in quarantine, so we cannot let up on ensuring that welfare standards are maintained. We should not ignore the issue simply because we are moving to a different system.
The world has moved on. I am not a scientist, but the evidence in the Kennedy report suggests that the risk is small—there were 12 cases in the wider European area. If only 12 humans out of a population of some 500 million contracted rabies, the risk is extremely small. If the proposed scheme involves only a small additional risk, it is probably one worth taking.
Smuggling continues to be widespread. We have heard anecdotal evidence of that this evening and I am sure that we all have constituency cases. Since I have discussed the issue on local radio and with the local media, I have been inundated with examples.
My only personal experience of the issue was in Germany a few years ago when there was a rabies scare in the area where I was staying, so I am aware of the fear that rabies causes in the local population.
I wish to mention a constituency case that urges me to make two specific points that I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will consider in the final implementation of the scheme. They concern the time scale with the delay of up to three years and the exclusion at this stage of the United States.
My constituent, Mrs. Lily Rigley, has an 82-year-old sister who moved to the United States some 30 years ago. All her family there have now passed away, so she is on her own and now wishes to return to the United Kingdom to live with her sister in Loughborough. She lives in


Florida, so she will definitely be travelling in the right direction. Loughborough is an extremely attractive place. However, her sister Margaret is blind and has a guide dog.

Mr. Paice: She will not know if it is any better, then.

Mr. Reed: Even if she were fully sighted, she would appreciate the delights of Loughborough. If Margaret were to return to the United Kingdom now, her guide dog would be placed in quarantine for six months, creating enormous upheaval in terms of her mobility and her life style. It is quite worrying for her in that, because of her age, her friends in the United States have diminished in number. She finds it extremely difficult to cope and she would desperately like to return to the United Kingdom.
Lily Rigley in my constituency and her sister Margaret in the United States have been excellent campaigners. They have contacted an enormous number of American senators and I appear to be on all their mailing lists. I have been inundated with e-mails. Information technology makes some things rather difficult as e-mails are all too easy to pass around.
The Kennedy report recommends that a further study is necessary. It has already carried out a risk assessment which concludes that there would be a slight additional risk if the scheme were extended to the European Union. However, it is such a very slight risk that I urge my hon. Friend to consider implementing the scheme as quickly as possible.
When she heard about the report on the news, Margaret Nash booked her airline ticket and arranged to return to the United Kingdom just before Christmas. One of the hardest things that I have had to do as a constituency Member was to phone Lily Rigley and ask her to tell her sister to cancel her ticket as we do not change the law that quickly in the United Kingdom. I am proud that, in the past 18 months, the Government have introduced many measures very speedily and I hope that they address this issue with the same urgency.
If we were to start some of the background work now and set up a pilot study, perhaps fast-tracking individuals such as those with guide dogs would be an ideal solution. Margaret Nash had already booked her ticket. I am sure that others feel equally anxious to come to the United Kingdom, and having heard about the issue on the world news, they will feel that the time has come to do so. Unfortunately, some may be prepared to take the risk of smuggling, perhaps assuming that, if the Government are considering changing the system, they may not prosecute them. I hope the signal goes out that that is not the case. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will repeat that, in the meantime, the quarantine regulations will continue to be enforced strictly. That is another difficulty that will arise if we delay the scheme for three years, as is mentioned in the Kennedy report.
The recruitment and training of the 43 staff could start fairly quickly. I cannot understand how it could take up to three years. If someone were employed to implement the strategy and set up the programme, I do not understand the time scale of three years.
I wanted to keep my remarks brief, highlighting my concerns on behalf of my constituent which have led to my involvement in the on-going debate. I particularly

emphasise the points that I made about the timing of the scheme. It has been discussed since the Select Committee report in 1994. There has been plenty of debate in the House and the country, and I know from my postbag that many of my constituents are concerned about the issue. I am more than happy to suggest that we implement the recommendations in the Kennedy report as quickly as possible and give serious consideration to including the United States in the scheme.

Mr. Tim Loughton: I am afraid that I am about to disappoint my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) by adding to the rather cosy agreement that, with his exception, has existed on both sides of the House.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate on four counts. First, I speak as vice-chairman of the Conservative animal welfare group. Secondly, I represent the closest channel port to London; I am not touting for the business of a pilot scheme as we do not have a passenger ferry, although Shoreham airport could be used. Thirdly, I am a supporter of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and its campaign on quarantine and many other dog-related subjects, and I am a co-supporter of the Registration of Dogs Bill, which, alas, did not make it on to the statute book. Finally, and perhaps, uniquely, I speak also as a Member who has a constituent who was bitten last year by a rabid bat, which had apparently fare-dodged a cross-channel ferry to Newhaven. I may, therefore, be able to speak with a little more authority than many of my colleagues.
We have already heard that Chris Patten said that the existing law is a painful and expensive farce. I can infer from what some hon. Members have said that quarantine and rabies are still something of a taboo subject, one of the last taboos in this country. One conjures up images of people manning the barricades, jealously guarding our boundaries against a dreadful, filthy, foreign disease. That is a rather outmoded concept. Yet, when the channel tunnel was being discussed, some people whipped up hysteria by saying that rats and other creatures would flood across from the continent, and that we would have rabies within a matter of days. Of course, that has not happened.
The truth is that the quarantine system has the potential to do more harm than good. Most hon. Members have mentioned the greater risk from smuggling, which may be much more dangerous, and which is certainly not on the wane. We have heard less about the enormous discomfort and stress that is caused to cats and dogs that have to go into quarantine, as well as that caused to their owners.
I welcome the Kennedy report; such a report is long overdue. Many things have happened since the report of the Select Committee on Agriculture of November 1994. The campaign for passports for pets has matured greatly, and the experiments in Scandinavian countries have proved largely successful. I do not see why we cannot base a scheme on those experiments. The technology of microchipping has advanced enormously, too, into a simple and straightforward process. On the continent itself, enormous progress has been made towards combating fox rabies, which was a big problem in the past, but which is certainly diminishing.
The report is detailed, balanced and welcome to all animal lovers, and we should note that there are around 6.9 million dog owners in the United Kingdom. The report


also has implications for other measures to encourage more responsible ownership of pets, such as the dog registration scheme that many of us supported. Alas, a Bill to introduce the scheme failed, just as the earlier ten-minute Bills to amend the quarantine law, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), failed.

Mr. Morley: The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) completed all its stages and is now law.

Mr. Loughton: We may be talking about different ten-minute rule Bills.

Mr. Morley: The Animal Health (Amendment) Act 1998.

Mr. Loughton: I defer to the Minister's greater wisdom. The measure introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West would have tackled quarantine specifically, and that did not progress.
Some 5,000 dogs and 3,000 cats are in quarantine each year. Those figures have been relatively static over the past 25 years, although the figure for dogs has dropped over the past year, which suggests that people anticipate a change in the law. If they do not get one sooner rather than later, there will be a good deal of angst. As the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) mentioned, there is the possibility that people may flout the law if to do so will soon not be an arrestable offence.
The trauma and stress inflicted on pets themselves should not be underestimated. Six months in quarantine is three and a half dog years, which is a large chunk of an animal's life. The cost can be around £1,200 for a cat and about £2,300 for a large dog. There are other animals: the cost for a chinchilla is £692; for a guinea pig or ferret £434; and for hamsters and rats—for those who value their pets so highly—£247. Out of 200,000 cats and dogs imported over the past 25 years, there have been four possible cases of rabies, although all of them were questionable. During the same period, 2,800 animals in quarantine have died, 1,200 of them during the past 10 years.
There is a question mark over the standard of quarantine kennels. Although there are many good ones, some anomalies were highlighted recently in a Channel 4 programme. Owners have no right to an independent inspection of their animals' living conditions. In 1995, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food received 35 complaints of animal cruelty in quarantine and kennels.
Across the world, 35,000 people die of rabies. It is a virulent, important and dangerous disease. The majority of deaths happen on the Indian sub-continent. I have spoken already, but will remind my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, of the risk we face—that only 12 people have had the disease in Europe, none of whom have died, over the past year. There were around 5,000 cases of animal rabies in greater Europe last year, but that was the lowest figure ever. It was just 20 per cent. of the comparable figure from 1989. The problem has certainly lessened.
The truth is that quarantine is not preventing anything. It causes harm to animals, and distress and cost to their owners. The risk of rabies in the UK is small and diminishing. The Kennedy report offers something far more effective in the form of vaccination. We should remember, too, that quarantine is unfair not only to members of the armed forces who often travel over borders to reside in Germany or other places, but to those in the diplomatic service whose life styles take them abroad. It also prevents many Britons from holidaying on the continent if they wish to take their pets with them. In the spirit of wishing to encourage greater European understanding—though not necessarily harmonisation of systems—I believe that that would be helpful.
Smuggling is alarming. Between 1988 and 1995, there were 769 recorded instances of animals being illegally imported to the UK. That is the tip of the iceberg as those are the ones that were caught. The RSPCA estimates that, each year, at least 1,000 animals are smuggled into the UK illegally, of which only about 10 per cent. are detected. There are also anti-quarantine activists who uses quasi-guerrilla tactics. One Chichester-based organisation regularly sends out detailed newsletters on how to transport animals through the channel tunnel without being caught. That is big business in some parts of the country.
There are big anomalies in our present system. Ours is the only country in the world to operate a compulsory six-month detention period, with the exception of the Hawaiian islands. Australia and New Zealand have recently modified their regulations for animals coming from rabies-free countries. Japan has no quarantine regulations, and it is rabies free. The experience of the Norwegian and Swedish systems shows that they can work. Those systems involve vaccination, antibody testing and passports. There is also, importantly, no cost to the taxpayer in those countries. Monitoring the current system alone costs the Exchequer about £1.25 million in respect of inspecting quarantine premises, testing animals and publicity about rabies.
I agree with the Kennedy proposals, which are common sense, because vaccination is a cure while quarantine is not. Vaccination ensures that animals do not contract rabies. The terms for revaccination and proper accreditation of laboratories are sensible.
I strongly favour giving animals proper passport identification documents, which is now easy with microchips. Some hon. Members mentioned the inconvenience of microchips, but they are the size of a grain of rice. It is a simple, virtually painless injection, over in a matter of seconds, and it costs only a few pounds. It is not costly or complicated; any vet worth his salt could administer it. The cost of the registration scheme, and its paperwork and everything that goes with, it has been estimated by the RSPCA at £300 to £400, which is a substantial discount on the average quarantine fees faced by owners. The scheme does them a financial favour.
One matter in the identification procedure to which I might take exception is the suggestion that uniquely numbered microchips cannot be chosen by the dogs' owners. That is a shame. Like personalised number plates, they could raise a good deal of revenue for good causes.


The possibility of Fifi 1, Posh Dog 2 or—most exclusive of the lot—K9, makes me think that we are missing a trick and an extra form of revenue for dog welfare.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I have come late to the debate, but I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend. I sympathise with these ideas generally. Is there any danger that a microchip inserted in a pet that has gone through all the registration procedures could be removed and inserted in another that has not?

Mr. Loughton: That is a pertinent question that I raised recently with the RSPCA. It is integral to the project that the microchip inserted in the dog matches the paperwork. There is a double check. If the microchip scan shows a poodle, but an Irish wolfhound has been presented, something is amiss. There are many inbuilt safety measures.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: What if it is another poodle?

Mr. Loughton: As the process involves blood testing, there is scope to take DNA samples. The RSPCA has considered all manner of solutions. Through the PetLog scheme, 355,000 dogs have been microchipped. If people are worried because all these hounds will have to be microchipped, let me say that many already have been. Regardless of the quarantine laws, I would like all dogs to he microchipped because that would bring about greater responsibility in the ownership of dogs. PetLog, a scheme run by the RSPCA and the Kennel Club, means that we have an increasingly sophisticated database for dogs. It gets 600 new applications every day.
We are out of step with our European partners. France has had a permanent compulsory identification system since the beginning of the year. In the Netherlands, all commercially traded dogs must be permanently identified, mostly with microchips. Germany has a compulsory dog identification scheme, as do Denmark, Belgium, Poland, Switzerland and many others. We are behind the times.
The system has applications elsewhere, especially with dog registration. The Kennedy report having conceded that the principle that dog registration is achievable and desirable, I urge the Minister to reconsider the possibility of a registration scheme for all dogs in Britain, regardless of whether they go on holidays across the channel. The problem is that more than 50 per cent. of our 6.9 million dogs stray each year. Traffic accidents, biting people, attacks on livestock and the time of police and council officers in seeking to reunite dogs with their owners cost more than £40 million. There are also the cases of cruelty to dogs. In 1997, the RSPCA brought 1,092 dog cruelty cases to court. Some 100,000 stray dogs have to be destroyed. It is a big problem. Microchipping those dogs would make the job of reuniting them with their owners much easier and would place the onus of responsibility on owners, so that, if they do not take care of their pets, dogs will be identified and the full force of law brought to bear.
I have some concerns about things that are not in the report and about some things that are, but should be modified. The major one is the three-year delay. It should be 18 months at the most. The delay can only encourage more smuggling in the short term. Some ports of entry are

virtually already equipped to handle such a system. The simple technology that I have described is easy to provide. I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of man to find 43 enforcement officers and train them in a simple procedure that is not much more complicated than that used by the average checkout assistant at Sainsbury or Tesco in running a bar code scanner across the microchip. If the procedure is beyond the wit of civil servants, will the Minister consider putting it out to tender for an agency or private contractor to set up the scheme more quickly, or could we use the expertise available in the Royal Army Veterinary Corps? I defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on that. There are many ways to speed things up.
My second concern is the countries covered. The World Health Organisation has categorised 46 countries as rabies free. Many are outside the European Union, have land borders and would be excluded, including Switzerland, which has a high standard of dog care and registration. North America, with the exception of Hawaii, is another area that frequently comes up, and it has some of the highest veterinary standards in the world. Of the dogs and cats brought into quarantine last year, slightly more than 26 per cent. came from north America, easily the second highest figure after the 38 per cent. from the EU.
Hon. Members will have had many e-mails from the persistent Mrs. Gloria Glammeyer from the United States. Her latest e-mail complained about
blatant discrimination against the United States … I thought that Britain and America shared a close camaraderie as sister countries.
Presumably, she has a dog that she particularly wants to bring to Britain, such is the ferocity of her e-mails, although I have never met her and she has no connection with my constituency so far as I know.
The third point, which was partially tackled by the Minister, is non-qualifying countries. We must ensure that a proper system is in place so that unscrupulous owners from a country such as South Africa do not bring their pets to a less rigorous EU country, reclassify them as EU dogs or cats and import them into the UK. A few years ago, a South African dog imported to Spain, which was claimed to be rabies free, sparked off a new spread of rabies. If we introduce all those measures and people flout the law and smuggle pets despite the ease of the system, the fines or terms of imprisonment should be increased. We must increase the penalties to act as a deterrent. There would be no excuse for people who still flouted the law.
The fourth consideration involves the administering of drugs for ticks and worms to animals within 24 hours of importation. That is a new idea. It is not currently required under the Balai arrangements governing the commercial trading of cats and dogs, and I believe that it should be detached from the quarantine issue. I think that it is a separate matter, and I hope that considerations in that area will not delay the speedy implementation of the changes.
The fifth issue involves the ferries. I hope that the Government will issue some guidance to ferry companies—particularly those operating ferries on longer crossings, which will need specific accommodation and exercise areas for pets in transit.
The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) referred to the legitimate case of kennel owners. I believe that they should receive some form of compensation, probably centred within the European Union. Some 46 per cent. of quarantined dogs and cats come from within the EU and,


if the present proposals are agreed, kennel owners will lose virtually half of their business. If North America were also included in the new arrangements, only 29 per cent. of quarantine business would remain with the 80 or so kennels operating in this country. That must mean bankruptcy for the vast majority of them, particularly the smaller kennels.
This is an area where it is appropriate to use that horrible word "modernise". We need to modernise and update our quarantine system. It is self-defeating for our system to be so different from those operating in the rest of the world. We have the technology to operate the alternative system and we have the good will of pet owners in this country. We now need to move much more quickly. The report proposes not a relaxation of our vigilance against rabies but a more viable replacement programme. As such, I hope that the Government will use every endeavour to speed up the implementation of the Kennedy report and the vast majority of its recommendations.

Mr. Brian White: As is usual at this time in a debate, many of the points that I wished to make have been made already—particularly with regard to animal welfare, smuggling and guide dogs. As I listened to the speech by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), I was forced to cross out large chunks of my speech because I agreed with him almost totally. I disagreed with him in one area, but I shall turn to that in a moment.
Five years ago. we would have had a totally different debate on this subject. Several of the comments made in this debate, particularly those by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), would have been more relevant at that time. Five years ago, I suspect that we would not have proceeded down the route that Kennedy has suggested. However, technology has changed all that.
I recently visited my mother-in-law in Sweden. As I knew that the United Kingdom quarantine system was under review, I asked the Swedes about their quarantine experience. Sweden shares land boundaries and we do not—except in the case of Northern Ireland, and the quarantine system in the Republic of Ireland is in line with our own—but I was interested to know how it had coped with the changes that had been introduced. Five or 10 years ago, there was a great debate in Sweden about whether the system should change. The almost universal view now is that the system is working well and that we should follow the Swedish example. I hope that the Minister will accept that the Swedish system works, and that he will proceed down the same route.
I agree with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham on the question of which countries should be involved in the scheme. I am confused as to why the restriction on islands that are rabies free remains. I believe that the Minister should include in any list of countries to which the scheme applies a number of countries—not just in north America—that have been declared rabies free. It is also important that that list be reviewed regularly to include or exclude certain countries. As the figures cited earlier in the debate show, circumstances change—it is not so long since rabies was advancing through France towards the channel. We must build a regular review

mechanism into the system so that countries that are rabies free may be added and those that have problems may be excluded.
I disagree with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham about compensation for kennel owners. It is important that that issue should not delay the progression of the scheme. The kennel owners have a valid concern, up to a point: they will lose business and the Government must ensure that they have a viable future. However, kennel owners should not be allowed to hold the Government to ransom or to hold up the scheme by expressing fears that were valid five years ago but now no longer apply for reasons that were set out earlier in the debate.
According to the figures, more pets will travel under the new scheme. Therefore, more business may be generated for kennel owners. Like any business when circumstances change, the kennel owners should adapt to altered circumstances. It is right that the Government should help them, but I do not believe that progress should be halted because the kennel owners fear change.
The timing is also important. I welcome the earlier statements about pilot schemes, but I think that at least one scheme should include an airport. The Eurostar and our ports have been mentioned as likely settings for pilot schemes. However, as a child, I was shown around the quarantine kennels at Heathrow and I believe that animals arriving at airports could create a problem. If there are to be pilot schemes, I believe that an airport should be included so that we may head off all possible problems.
Many of my constituents have contacted me to say that they believe that three years is too long, and I echo the comments made earlier in the debate in that regard. It is important that we implement the scheme before the centenary of the introduction of the quarantine regime in 1901.

Mr. Robert Key: I was brought up to treat dogs with respect and never to forget that, whether working dogs or perfumed poodles, they are animals, not children. I was brought up to respect the laws on rabies and to be very careful of dogs in less fortunate countries. I was brought up to accept all that without thinking. It was easy—because our family did not own a dog.
I did not like dogs. My ankles were nipped by pernicious pekinese and my neighbours had little dogs that yapped for hours and put me off. Glasses of gin and tonic—I do not like whisky and soda, or I would use that line—were sent flying by the tails of labradors and retrievers. I was indoctrinated, prejudiced and thoroughly anti-dog, and it was all very convenient. So what changed?
I begin by welcoming Professor Kennedy's advisory group's report and the Government's response to it. I welcome particularly the Opposition's response to the report because it makes it much easier for me to deliver this speech. I declare not so much an interest in the debate as a motive. I am now a reformed character. I am the proud owner of a springer spaniel called Tigger, whom I would like to take on holiday to France every year. Hundreds of my constituents would also like to take their dogs on holiday to France and elsewhere every year—after all, Salisbury is only an hour from the channel ports.
Furthermore, hundreds of service men and women in my constituency—who serve mostly in the Army—and their families are compulsorily posted to Germany and Cyprus. I am really standing here because about four years ago a young intelligence officer and his wife came to my surgery on a Friday evening to tell me about the rough time they were having. They had acquired a dog while posted to Germany. Shortly thereafter, they were posted back to the United Kingdom for what was supposed to be two years; in fact, it was only six months before they were posted back to Germany again. They could not afford the expense, but they were blowed if they were going to do without their dog.
Far more recently—only a few months ago—I went to Cyprus to visit the British forces and I met many people who had dog problems. It is ridiculous that a rabies-free island like Cyprus should not be excluded from the regulations, especially when the Royal Army Veterinary Corps is on hand at both ends to help and there are secure premises at each end. I urge Ministers to consider a trial involving our troops in Cyprus, because they provide a jolly good example of how things should be done. They care hugely about the issue and they have massive experience. They have an excellent and ingenious dog exchange scheme; dogs can stay in Cyprus and families can adopt a new dog when they are posted there, but there is nothing like being able to take one's own dog to a new posting.
Another motivation comes from a husband-and-wife team in my constituency who have sunk their savings into a well-equipped and well-staffed quarantine kennel. They would face extremely hard times if Government reforms were introduced without there being any financial recompense. The husband, Michael Wykeham, is chairman of the Quarantine Association and I am grateful to him, his wife and their staff for bringing me so carefully and convincingly up to speed on the issue.
I recall one of my visits to those excellent kennels. It was a kennel owner's nightmare: it was February, the temperature was below freezing, all the pipes and everything else were frozen and the local Member of Parliament had turned up to inspect. It could not have been more difficult for the kennel owner, but it was a happy, clean place and the level of care made a great impression on me. At this point, I should like to thank the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who met Michael Wykeham and myself to discuss the issues some time ago. He received us courteously and constructively.
There can be no doubt that rabies is a terrible disease, but science has moved on and the current regulations have been left behind. I do not suppose for a moment that those who strongly argue in favour of there being no change refuse to go on holiday to parts of the world where there might be a rabid animal in the street. Do they refuse to allow their children to go abroad? Do they visit only a handful of certified countries that are guaranteed to be free of rabies? I bet that they do not. The biggest risk that rabies will enter this country arises from the smuggling of pets.
I was a tad concerned by the RSPCA campaign about "relaxing the rules", because I do not see the changes as relaxing the rules; I see them as tightening the

effectiveness of the system and reducing the risks of smuggling. Some years ago, when I started on this treadmill, it was hard to persuade the RSPCA of our case. My approach was to stay beside the RSPCA stand at the Conservative party conference and say in a loud voice to anyone who came near, "The RSPCA is promoting cruelty to animals, because they will not agree to change." I was eventually taken to one side, as one is, but that was the start. Now, the RSPCA is wholly on side for all the right reasons.
It was a little harder to persuade the vets, because vets are cautious people. When I first started campaigning on the issue and speaking in the House about it, I got into trouble with the local vets in Salisbury. However, even they have now come around to our point of view—albeit with entirely legitimate concerns.
It has been hard to persuade the public and it will continue to be so. After all, for the past 50 years the taxpayer has been funding extremely expensive and convincing advertising campaigns. I was entirely brainwashed by those wonderful campaigns, which cost a great deal of money out of MAFF's budget. We all have to think about how to re-educate the public.
I always thought it an anachronism that traded cats and dogs were excluded from the regulations. What is good enough for traded cats and dogs should be good enough for the rest of us. If we are talking about raising the standards up to those applying to traded cats and dogs, that appears to meet the case. In fact, I suspect that we shall go further.
What about the kennel owners? There are two issues involving kennel owners, not one. The first is cruelty and bad kennels. There is absolutely no excuse for that, and none of the respectable kennel owners in this country will put up for a second with neighbours who bring their trade into disrepute. Most kennel owners are good kennel owners; they would not be kennel owners if they did not care for animals. The second, separate issue is that of quarantine. It is a great pity to blur those two issues, and the only point in the past couple of years on which I have had any slight disagreement with the campaign has been with people who have muddled them.
At this point, I should like to pay tribute to the campaign of Passports for Pets, which I have supported for some years. I pay particular tribute to Mary Fretwell, who is the prime mover behind the campaign and an indefatigable worker. She knows all about how the regulations affect our professional representatives overseas in the diplomatic service.
I shall address briefly the question of recompense to kennel owners. I deliberately do not use the word "compensation", preferring to use the term "ex gratia payment". As the former Select Committee on Agriculture made clear, there should be some recompense. It seems to me that, the more the state interferes in the private affairs of its citizens and accelerates regulation of our lives, the more the state should accept responsibility if it effectively confiscates private assets that were bought at the request of the state, licensed by the state, regulated by the state and inspected by the state.
We have seen this sort of thing before. We saw it when bovine spongiform encephalopathy led to the entire head deboning industry being closed down overnight by fax. The premises were licensed and inspected by the state, but they received not a penny from the state. The same


was true of the buildings and assets of gun makers and gun clubs, which subject has already been mentioned. That legislation marks the only occasion in my 15 years in the House on which I have voted against my own Government on a three-line Whip. Another case concerned the campaign, in which I was a prime mover, for an ex gratia payment settlement for haemophiliacs who had been infected with HIV through the national health service.
The conventional Whitehall arguments are pretty familiar: the Government have never compensated citizens for loss of trade resulting from Government policy. That is not an unreasonable proposition. If the Government introduce a new or increased tax, or impose a regulation for reasons of public health or public interest, I can understand that argument. The European convention on human rights states that the state should not deprive a person of his possessions
except in the public interest".
In the case of changing quarantine regulations, it seems to me that it would not be the Government's intention to bankrupt kennel owners, but it would be a secondary consequence of a change in public policy. In those circumstances, the Government might say that they were not depriving private citizens of their possessions, but simply prohibiting their use, so the rules governing confiscation did not apply. However, those are weasel words and the Government should show some generosity of spirit. I hope that they will.
As to the three-year implementation period, I can say only that delay will encourage smuggling—it is as simple as that. There is a possibility that the system will be phased in. Earlier, I mentioned that Eurostar and some of the ferry services might be willing to help—indeed, being the first to be ready to transport pets might even introduce a new element of competition between those services. We shall see. In any case, the three-year implementation period is unrealistic.
I would also take issue with the suggestion that all animals should be treated no more than 24 hours before entering Britain with drugs to kill ticks and worms that might spread disease. It is not that I do not approve of preventing the spread of ticks, worms and disease, but that requirement appears to have been bolted on to the rabies debate. I am not quite sure where it comes from, but it seems likely to have originated from those who are determined that there should be no change—so we must try to demolish their arguments. That is a new idea; it should be considered on its merits and I agree that it is right for a different legislative framework. The 24-hour requirement for vaccination against ticks and worms is not enforced under the Balai arrangements for trading cats and dogs; nor is it enforced for horses entering and leaving the country.

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman, who is making a good case, is underestimating the need to control ticks and parasites. A condition of Balai is that the animals never leave their place of origin, so they are already tightly controlled in relation to parasites.

Mr. Key: I recall the Balai regulations. I remain to be convinced that it is right to include such a measure in this system; it might slow down the operation and people might lose confidence in it. Pet owners are the first people

to care for the health of their pets. It is the exception for pet owners not to recognise when their pets have an infestation or are thoroughly off colour because of worms. We must consider that measure afresh.
I welcome the proposals and I congratulate the Government and Opposition Front Benchers on their constructive stance. Four years ago, I did not think that it would be only four years before we had a proper debate on this matter; I thought it would be more like 10 years. We are making progress, but let us not wait another three years before something happens.

Dr. Nick Palmer: The system is an idea whose time has come, as the debate has shown. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) said, the proposals would have been much more controversial five years ago and, if we were to wait another five years, they would seem antiquated. I warmly support the proposals. Rather than reiterate the many good points that have been made, I shall focus on a few aspects of the matter.
First, the areas covered by the system should relate not to political associations such as the European Union and the European Economic Area but to a geographical area. There are places within the EU and the EEA—principally Switzerland but also Andorra, San Marino and a few other mini-states—that are not covered by those political associations, not because they are great centres of rabies, which they are not, but because, for political reasons, they decided not to join. If we include Liechtenstein in the system but not Switzerland, enforcement will be almost impossible because the border between the two countries is completely porous. I therefore urge that the area covered should be western Europe—the EU, the EEA, Switzerland and other small states.
I concur with earlier speakers that there is a strong prima facie case that the proposals could include the United States. I suggest that, during the introductory period, the Minister might commit himself more closely to consider the US position, so that it might be possible to add the United States to the scheme in a few years.
On the introductory period, the full version of the report says that Kennedy rejected a phased period because he felt that there might be a legal problem. He envisaged a form of phasing that would allow all British citizens to use the system but make foreigners wait. He pointed out that, first, such a proposal would cover two thirds of the traffic and, secondly, it would be against European Union rules. That is correct and that version of phasing is a non-starter.
I suggest that we begin by including in the scheme what one might consider, in human terms, to be hardship cases, such as people who, for a good reason, usually related to work, are taken abroad for longer than a few weeks. I am referring not to holidaymakers but to Army personnel, business men and diplomats who are posted abroad or who are already abroad and perhaps reaching the end of their period of work.
We should have a pilot project that applies to people who are leaving the country, or who have already been out of the country for one month or longer. That could be introduced possibly even before we have sufficient legislation to justify charging on the basis that those people would have to come through one or two specified


ports and airports. That would give us a chance to test out the system and train people. It would be difficult to train people on paper to operate such a system.
If we began with what I estimate to be a minority of the total numbers involved, that would help to smooth implementation of the scheme—we are aware that in Sweden there were teething problems—and deal with hardship cases. Much as I enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), he would accept that going on holiday is not as heart-wrenching as being posted abroad. Holidaymakers might reasonably agree to wait two or three years until the system had been tested and was working smoothly.

Mr. Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the complications in any attempt at a pilot scheme, however defined, would be the availability of approved laboratory and veterinarian facilities for certification? That will determine how the scheme operates, whether it is a pilot scheme or the final dispensation. Does the hon. Gentleman not view that as a problem?

Dr. Palmer: No, because, as the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting, the Kennedy report identifies the certification procedure and selection of the correct vaccine and laboratories as problems that must be solved, and a pilot scheme would reinforce our ability to solve them. To say that, on a certain date, 250,000 people will enter a system and all the laboratories will be set up and the arrangements will be working, is to ask a lot of our powers of organisation. If we begin with a few tens of thousands of people, we have the chance to try out the scheme on a more manageable basis and ensure that the conditions mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman are fulfilled and that implementation is foolproof.
My remaining points reinforce those of earlier speakers. The significance of the 24-hour period in tick vaccination is not clear. If it is deemed essential to introduce that vaccination at the same time as the scheme, there may be physical problems in ensuring that a vet is available on the day that the person is travelling, so perhaps that period could be extended.
I have campaigned on kennel compensation for many years, partly because I have lived abroad and felt the consequences of the present system. Those of us who will benefit from the proposals should accept that there will be a huge reduction in costs for us. I would not begrudge it if, for a transitional period of two or three years, there was an additional charge of £10 or £20 on the fee for the microchip to raise money for a decommissioning fund for affected kennels. I am sure that most people would agree, given the enormous savings that they would make.
My conclusion is the same as that of all the other speakers, with one exception. The scheme is overdue and I praise the Government for taking it up and hope that we can press forward with it as soon as possible.

Mr. David Amess: I am delighted that we have had the opportunity to discuss quarantine measures, although I am not especially delighted to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) because he has ruined my

speech. Nevertheless, as I have sat in the Chamber since the start of the debate, I feel that I must make one or two points.
The idea that the nation is gripped by the subject of subsidiarity would be bizarre, but the nation is very interested in quarantine. If hon. Members think that it is not, I suspect that they are out of touch, because this is a nation of animal lovers. My goodness, we had the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South—

Ms Jenny Jones: Wolverhampton, South-West.

Mr. Amess: Thank you. We had the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) telling us that for her printed election address she was photographed with her cat, not her family. I also was happy to be photographed with my dog, but that is where the hon. Lady and I part company; I included my family in the photograph, because they thought that they were at least as good-looking as the dog.
On a serious note, animals are many people's life. Many people genuinely prefer animals to human beings. Some of us can understand why they feel like that. When I go home, my family is not always thrilled to see me, but my dog is. Frankly, that is because it knows that, when I come in, it will be taken for a walk.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said that he had a springer spaniel. The latter is 10 years old, so the Minister of Agriculture and the Parliamentary Secretary should note that he, for one, cannot wait three years until the measure becomes law. I have a black labrador which was bought for one of my children by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). It certainly reflects her formidable personality, and it seems to dominate our house.
Animals are terribly important to many people. In November 1997, I introduced a ten-minute Bill, the Reform of Quarantine Regulations Bill; I take the credit for thereby inspiring the Government to come up with this proposal, and inspiring Professor Kennedy. I introduced the Bill because, having read the speeches of Lord Waddington and Chris Patten, I had been moved by their circumstances. Some might churlishly inquire, "One had been Home Secretary and the other was Secretary of State for the Environment, so why did they do nothing about it at the time?" I shall be kind and say that I suspect that not all members of the Government agreed with the moves that they wanted to make.
I am sure that, when the Minister introduced the debate, he did not wish to imply that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, when in government, were not seriously considering introducing a similar measure; if that was the implication, I believe that it was wrong.
When I introduced the Reform of Quarantine Regulations Bill, I spent a great deal of time talking to the representatives of all manner of organisations. Like all other hon. Members, I have praised Passports for Pets, the RSPCA, the Kennel club and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I spent much time with all those organisations, learning at first hand about our quarantine laws.
I heard the Minister say that he could not possibly take risks with the nation's health. There can be no suggestion of such risks being taken; we are at one with him on that.


The existing measures have worked successfully for a long time. However, after reflecting on the law, we have come to realise that there should be some moderation. Presumably, if one wanted to prevent all road accidents, one would ban cars and coaches. To prevent alcoholism, one would stop everyone drinking. Some measures have achieved their ends, but I doubt that the quarantine laws are among them.
When I was shown around a large quarantine centre I was struck by the fact that, in each compound, owners were kissing and cuddling their animals. It occurred to me that—never mind rabies—if the animals had an infection, the owners would catch the disease and pass it on to people outside. I saw at first hand how ridiculous the arrangements are. Moreover, in one compound there was a dog aged about 16. It was very grey and it did not have any of its required tablets and medicines with it, so it would not last much longer. I believe, therefore, that the existing measures are cruel.
I am greatly encouraged by the debate—especially because I now know that, if I am lucky enough to be drawn in the ballot for a private Member's Bill and seek to re-introduce my 1997 Bill, the Government will support me. Under no circumstances can we afford to wait three years. I do not accept that it will take that long to draft and pass sensible regulations to enable us to treat our animals humanely. I very much look forward to the Government's support if I am successful in next month's ballot.

Mr. James Paice: We have had an excellent debate—which is probably not surprising, given the House's ability to discuss issues in real depth when we debate them on the Adjournment. The debate has been useful, and we should all be grateful to the Government for arranging it, although I think that some of us understand the difficulties that the Government are having in filling time while their legislation is in another place.

Mr. Nick Brown: I could fill it on my own.

Mr. Paice: The Minister says that he could fill it on his own. Perhaps he would start with a statement about agriculture. [Laughter.] Promises!
I thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced the debate, and express my pleasure at seeing him in the Chamber. I was not expecting him to be present because I thought that he would be at the place where I was supposed to be tonight, but I am pleased to see him. I also record my thanks and appreciation for the fact that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) gave me his apologies for not being able to be present for the winding-up speeches.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said, in principle, we support change, but some aspects of the proposals, make us profoundly uneasy—especially their bureaucracy and complexity and, as a consequence, their ability to ensure at least as high a level of protection against rabies as at present.
I do not mean it as a criticism, but this afternoon we have seen how easy it is to get carried away with emotion and to ignore the fundamental factor—the protection of human health and of our animals and wildlife. I realise that, in theory—and as is shown by the New Zealand

assessment and the experience in Sweden—the proposed method may be even more effective than quarantine, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, it also matters that the system is possible to implement. Quarantine is very simple, however rough and ready—and perhaps inhumane—it may sometimes seem. My right hon. Friend quoted Mr. Ted Chandler, a vet, who expressed similar views.
I consulted my noble friend and constituent, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, former President of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the first vet to become President of the Royal Society of Medicine. He has spoken on this subject in the other place many times. He has endorsed my view that change is necessary, and he believes that the proposals of the Kennedy committee represent the way to go, although he has one or two queries, some of which I intend to convey to the House.
The proposed criteria specifically refer to the animal being resident in the EU or the European Economic Area for six months. The Minister dealt with that in so far as a UK citizen takes his animal abroad. However, the matter is slightly less clear with regard to an animal owned by somebody from France, Germany or wherever. How are we to know whether, during that six months, that animal has been to some other country where rabies exists? I hope that the Minister will be able to address that.
The Minister touched on recommendation No.34 and the possible import of exotic diseases. The committee said that it was beyond its resources to examine the issue properly. I hope that the Minister will state categorically that such a study will be carried out before the proposals are introduced; otherwise, we might find a better way of preventing rabies only to let in some other obnoxious disease.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) referred to commercial transactions. I share his view that the present position is inconsistent. I was a parliamentary private secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture when the Balai agreement was drawn up for commercial transactions. I felt then that the pass had effectively been sold and that we would have to move forward on similar grounds for dogs and cats.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk referred to concerns about the efficiency of the system and the availability and universality of the technology involved. Professor Kennedy recommends a central data base, although he says that it is not essential. Surely that is an essential tool, with terminals at every port. How else can fraud be prevented? We cannot be certain that the controls will not be evaded. It may be almost impossible to transfer a chip from one animal to another, but it is not impossible to alter documentation. We must ensure that every eventuality is covered. However much we might like to think otherwise, someone will always want to evade the controls. Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) and many others, I have seen the PetLog system and that seems to be a good example of what could be provided.
I come now to the systems that other countries will be required to use for their nationals entering Britain. Who will issue the health certificates in other countries? How can we ensure that that will be done with the professionalism and rigour that we would expect from our own vets? That brings us to the issue of what veterinary


qualifications we recognise in some of the countries whose citizens may be coming here with a dog, hoping that they have the necessary certification.
The Minister said that, if someone comes in with inadequate documentation, the animal will have to go into quarantine, at least until the matter is sorted out. However, there is a difference between inadequate documentation because a form has not been filled in properly or is incomplete, and what appears to be a perfectly valid set of documents, but which have been produced and signed by somebody who is not displaying the rigour necessary if the system is to work.
There is an International Standard Organisation standard for implants which, presumably, would be used by the Government, but, as has been said, other systems are in use throughout Europe. I hope that the Minister will tell the House how interchangeable that technology is and how transferable any information from it would be between other countries if we wish to move in that direction. I understand that there is no standard serological test and no designated laboratory in Europe to do it. The Government must move quickly to set the right standards for those tests and to bring uniformity to the arrangements.
The Minister properly referred to the issue of costs, and he answered one or two interventions, for which we are grateful. I hope that he or the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm that dog owners who do not seek to take their dog abroad will not face any costs as a result of the proposal.

Mr. Nick Brown: indicated assent.

Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for his confirmation that the cost will fall on those dog and cat owners who take their animals abroad. I assume that that means that the annual costs of running the system will be put into some sort of charge. Will he elaborate on the initial cost of up to £4.4 million according to the report? Will that be annualised into the charge or funded in some other way? Several hon. Members have said that it would be wrong for the taxpayer to be involved and the Chancellor clearly agrees.
I think that all hon. Members who have spoken have referred to the three-year timetable. That has clearly surprised many of the representatives of outside organisations that are involved in the issue, many of whom will be reading the debate. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the matter will be looked at again. That would be welcome. It does seem a long time, but the matter must be got right. At the end of the day, we must ensure that, because that is the most important thing.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said that he is always concerned about consensus because if anything is a matter of consensus, it must be wrong. He knows, because we have talked about it many times, that I have a lot of sympathy with that view. The real problem is that such consensus often results in a hurried piece of legislation. That is one reason why I am usually so cynical.

Mr. Morley: That is not this case.

Mr. Paice: Yes, that is why I am prepared to disregard my concern about consensus. This matter is clearly

receiving a lot of time and deliberation. We must not rush its introduction, but we must not delay it more than is essential.
I intended to propose a pilot scheme, but the Minister pre-empted me and I am delighted that he did. Nearly every hon. Member has supported the idea of such a scheme. There have been many suggestions and a number of bids from constituencies to have such a pilot—surprise, surprise. I hope that the Minister will now give serious consideration to that prospect.
I come now to the legality of the proposals vis-a-vis Europe. The Minister said that he had been in close contact with the Commission, and we appreciate that. It is what we would expect of him. However, the Minister and his predecessor said, and continue to say, that, with regard to food safety, they are allowed not to check every consignment of food from Europe that comes into this country, but only to make random checks. If so, and that is the line that has been followed for the past 18 months, I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that he will be able to carry out checks on every cat and dog coming into Britain, and that he will not be prevented from doing so by the same legislation that prevents him from inspecting every food consignment.
The Minister nods, and I hope that I can take that as confirmation.
Recommendation No. 27 says that the new system would be transitional while a Europe-wide scheme was developed. I share the views of many hon. Members who believe that the British people will accept the proposed new system, if we can persuade them that it will offer better protection than the present system. However, they will not accept any dilution of that scheme for the sake of European harmonisation, so I hope the Minister can assure us that he will not agree to any modification of our new scheme with the objective of attaining a Europe-wide scheme that is less effective.
Another issue, which was raised by my noble Friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, relates to the veterinary certificates that are currently required to take a dog abroad from this country, in many cases at a cost of £50. We have not been told whether that system is to be maintained or abandoned. Concern is expressed in recommendation No. 26 that, even under the present system, no effort is made to trace the considerable number of import licences that are issued but not used. That requires investigation.
A further question, which may raise one or two eyebrows, concerns animals that fail the test for entry into Britain. The Minister said that such animals would have to go into quarantine while the matter was sorted out, or be re-exported. Some people may not be able to afford the costs involved. I hope that the destruction of those animals will be an option if that is what the owners want. That may not seem a satisfactory solution to many people, and I hope that the option would be exercised only rarely, but we have not heard whether it would be available.
Several hon. Members spoke about the issue of north America, including my hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) and for Salisbury. It is unclear whether the definition of north America includes Mexico. The report states that very few animals enter from north America. The assumption is that, if quarantine were ended, the number would remain low.
As a Member of Parliament with a high number of United States service men living in my constituency, I am not sure that that would be the case. If it were easy for service men to bring their animals in, the numbers would rise considerably. Representations have been made to me along those lines.
I hope that the Government will undertake, as they have been urged by several hon. Members, to carry out an assessment of the situation concerning north America, particularly as the New Zealand assessment for the United States gave a lower level of probability of failure to control rabies through a vaccination programme than through six months quarantine. That was reinforced by the Kennedy report, which states that, if animals from any country are satisfactorily identified, vaccinated and blood tested, the risk is reduced, compared to quarantine. We envisage allowing animals from the EU and EEA to come into the country. Neither of those areas is rabies free, so the position with regard to north America is anomalous.
We have had an excellent debate and, as has been observed, a consensus seems to be developing. In this case, that is highly desirable and the Opposition are willing to participate. As we all know, however, there is a huge difference between theory and practice. The proposed system is far more complicated than the present one. There are many questions to be answered before we can give it our whole-hearted support. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will respond to the many concerns that I and others have expressed. If he cannot, I hope that the Government will find the answers and ensure that the problems are resolved before the scheme is introduced. As long as that scheme is effective, the sooner it comes on stream, the better.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): We have had a constructive debate on the report. I add my congratulations to Professor Kennedy and his team for the thorough way in which they have undertaken their task, following the brief that they were given by the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
I shall try to deal with various points that were raised by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) in his opening speech for the Opposition and by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) in his closing speech. With regard to enlargement of the European Union, the issue of new member states would have to be addressed by the European Commission, which has its own procedures for controlling rabies. I assume that that would include eradication programmes, which have been extremely successful in northern Europe.
The microchip that is proposed by Professor Kennedy should conform to ISO standard 11784. Much work has been done on microchip technology. One hears stories about microchips moving around animals' bodies. That is somewhat exaggerated—it sounds as though the microchip goes round the bloodstream. There was some migration of the early microchips, but that has been rectified by microchip design, particularly of the surface of the microchip. Even in the case of the early microchips, any movement was within a fairly limited area where the microchip had been inserted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) gave a considered response to the Kennedy report. Representing a major point of entry and having quarantine kennels in his area, he has a substantial interest in the matter. If the Dover harbour board builds new facilities for the animals that will come in, it can recover the costs through harbour charges, as it does at present for any new facility that it provides—for example, for roll on/roll off or passenger ferries.
My hon. Friend, and other hon. Members, asked about the prospect of compensation for quarantine kennel owners. People who run quarantine kennels fear that, if the proposed changes are introduced, they will be severely disadvantaged. I understand that. There are about 80 quarantine premises in Great Britain. Quarantine will, however, survive in some form, even under the recommendations of the Kennedy report. Quarantine kennel owners will not have their land or buildings confiscated. They will still be able to use their facilities. Providing quarantine boarding will still be an option, as will other commercial activities such as normal boarding facilities, which are increasingly being used.
The Kennedy report found that the risk of allowing animals into Britain from some countries without quarantine is simply too great at present. In countries such as India, street rabies is endemic. The advisory group made it clear that animals must go into quarantine if the proper paper work is not available or if there is genuine doubt about compliance with the rules. That was emphasised by my right hon. Friend the Minister. It is also likely that such animals will have to be quarantined for a period.

Dr. Palmer: I seek clarification. I presume that, as now, it will be possible to take the animal away and apply at a later date, and that it would not be a tightening of the present regulations.

Mr. Morley: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend means take the animal out of the country.

Dr. Palmer: indicated assent.

Mr. Morley: That might be an option, because that option exists now in the case of people who bring animals into the country, unaware that they should go into quarantine. Those animals have to be removed from the country. I suspect that the same regulations would apply in those cases. There may be the option of keeping the animals in the country but putting them into quarantine. I think that people would have that choice in those circumstances.
Quarantine kennel owners have asked for compensation if the rules are changed. That request was supported by the Agriculture Select Committee in 1994. However, as some hon. Members have acknowledged, it is a long-established principle that Governments do not compensate commercial operators for loss of business when health controls are introduced or removed. It would be wrong to offer any prospect of departing from that principle. Furthermore, if new legislation impacts on a business, automatic right to compensation does not necessarily follow. For example, the head deboning industry closed down overnight as a result of BSE regulations, and gun shops were affected by the firearms legislation. There are many other such examples.
I acknowledge that quarantine might command wider support if people thought that their pets were as well looked after on quarantine premises as they would be at home. Concerns have been expressed about some quarantine kennels and, although it would be wrong to generalise, there have been many reports of poor treatment. The lack of statutory welfare standards for quarantine premises has been a gaping hole in our controls, but thanks to the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), who introduced a ten-minute Bill, we now have on the statute book the power to introduce such standards. We intend to make full use of that power and will hold a full public consultation in due course.
The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) has been consistent in his campaign for change. He is right to say that the quarantine issue is not necessarily one of cost, but the fact that people do not want to be separated from their pets. I understand that. He is also right to say that proper safeguards need to be implemented and that, even once the changes have been introduced, quarantine will continue and welfare standards must still be properly applied.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned time scale. That was echoed by several other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall). We agree that the recommended three years is a long time. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, there is a lot of work to do before the changes can be implemented, including introducing primary legislation, which is a delay in itself.

Mr. Key: There has always been a dispute about whether primary legislation is needed. I have been advised that we could simply amend the regulations. I understand that, politically, it might be better to opt for primary legislation but, technically, the changes could be made by amending secondary legislation, so let us not rule that out.

Mr. Morley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall look at the matter closely because it is always easier and better to introduce changes through secondary rather than primary legislation. We can thus avoid the problem of time slots. However, we are advised that, as charges are involved, and because of the element of compulsion in those charges, primary legislation would be required.

Dr. Palmer: Several hon. Members have mentioned the possibility of a pilot scheme. Would it not be sensible to have no charges under the pilot scheme to allow for the fact that procedures would move more slowly and people would have to put up with various difficulties?

Mr. Morley: I shall come to the idea of pilot schemes in a moment. The problem of introducing pilot schemes without charges is that it is always more difficult to introduce charges later.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire has a long involvement in this issue. He was a member of the Select Committee on Agriculture that made the case for change in the quarantine laws in 1994. Although, at that time, many people were not persuaded by the case for change, the detail that the Select Committee went into

changed many people's minds. It certainly influenced me. Although I had always thought that there was a case for change, the Select Committee's detailed arguments made it clear that it was time to look at the matter properly, as Professor Kennedy has, and to assess all the risks. As my hon. Friend said, people must be reassured. I join him in congratulating groups like the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Passports for Pets, which have taken a constructive approach to the issue and made sensible and detailed arguments.
The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), who apologised for being unable to be here for the winding-up speeches, made a balanced and constructive speech. He raised the famous case of Whisky and Soda. Although prominent and famous people who have raised the issue in the press have helped to advance the debate, it would be wrong to assume that the proposed changes have been driven by people who happen to be wealthy and powerful. People have been arguing for change for many years. The proposed changes are not a response to those who are fortunate enough to be able to articulate their inconvenience at being unable to bring their dogs back from Hong Kong. The issue is about the concerns of service families, diplomats and people who work and live abroad—those who simply do not want to be parted from their pets.
The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West and my hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) spoke of guide dogs. Professor Kennedy considered that matter, but did not make guide dogs a special exception because they are as vulnerable to rabies as any other dog. However, we have discussed pilot schemes and ways to implement the change. We are in a consultation period, so we can consider all the issues carefully. There is certainly an argument for considering guide dogs in any pilot scheme, so long as they comply with the recommendations put forward by Professor Kennedy.
I was interested in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West about the impact of separating people from their animals. Studies show that separation can be detrimental to both animal and owner. I understand how important the issue is to my hon. Friend, given that she was photographed with her cat for her election address. I know of a prospective parliamentary candidate who was photographed with a donkey for his election address. He was not successful in his campaign, so those matters must be considered carefully. I have two cats, one of which was rescued. One is called Boris—I shall not say why he was named after Boris Yeltsin, but he is fairly laid back. The only stress that he would suffer from separation would be separation from his lunch.
Just as we were having a constructive, consensual discussion, along came the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) who put a spanner in the works. I hope that his mother-in-law will not have to look for a new excuse for not visiting him if the quarantine laws are changed, given some of his attitudes. It appears that the Euro-sceptic poison in the Tory party bloodstream runs very deep. The proposal for quarantine reform is not some kind of Euro-federalist plot. It is a little bit more constructive than that.
I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman the serious point that he made: we are not prepared to take risks with this country's rabies-free status. We are all agreed on that, one of the important points which Professor Kennedy had to consider. As a number of hon. Members said, public confidence must be maintained when any change to the law is made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough was absolutely right about cost. I make it clear that the cost of changes will be based on full cost recovery for those who use the service, which is only right and proper, and there would be a considerable saving on the current cost of quarantine. He also mentioned north America where, as Professor Kennedy recognised, rabies is endemic. I should make it clear that we do not include Mexico in north America in geographical terms.

Mr. Paice: Someone did.

Mr. Morley: I do not know who, but that person is not from the Labour party. We understand geography quite well enough not to include Mexico in north America. We recognise, as did Professor Kennedy, that standards of veterinary and animal care in north America are high, so there is a case to consider. Again, that can be done as part of the consultation.

Mr. Reed: This is a second bite of the cherry, but I reiterate that, because of the system in the United States, the particular guide dog is already chipped, has a health certificate and would meet the requirements in the Kennedy report. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that north America, and those states that are already covered, have a strong case for being in the first wave?

Mr. Morley: There is a case, and Professor Kennedy acknowledged that in his report. Further consideration will be given to that as part of the process.

Mr. Paice: The Labour party may know that Mexico is not part of north America, but the Americans clearly do not, given that the North American Free Trade Agreement includes Mexico.
The Minister has answered questions about running costs, but I mentioned set-up costs, which will be £4.4 million. Can he shed any light on where the funding will come from?

Mr. Morley: That is one of the issues that we shall have to consider as part of the response to Professor Kennedy. It is possible, for example, that the set-up costs could be recovered over time, as part of the overall charging regime. We can consider that issue, and I do not think that it is a particular problem.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) put forward a good argument about the advantages of the changes. It is worth emphasising that the regulations will not be weakened; in many ways, they, and the measures that protect our country from rabies, could be strengthened. I also accept his arguments on the progress that has been made on eradicating fox rabies. A scheme in northern Europe, involving dropping bait from helicopters, has been successful and should be extended to eastern Europe, where fox rabies is concentrated at present.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham mentioned dog registration, which is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, not the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to consider. He made a persuasive case for dog registration, and those arguments will be considered in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) was right to refer to the atmosphere of the debate, because we would not have had such a calm and rational discussion about changing the quarantine regulations a few years ago. There have been changes in technology and, as he mentioned, we have the experience of Sweden, which has changed its quarantine control regulations.
The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) made a good case, and I understand his desire to take Tigger on holiday in its advancing years. I should point out to him, however, that there will be a charge for taking animals on holiday, and people will have to weigh that up. This is not simply a matter of taking the dog across the channel for the day on a shopping trip; there will be a charge, and strict regulations to ensure that our rabies-free status is not undermined.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Salisbury about a trial in Cyprus. In 1994, when I spoke from the Opposition Benches, I suggested to the then Government that a trial in Cyprus would not be a bad idea because, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, it is rabies free and there would be minimal risk. We have the Kennedy recommendations, and we could perhaps consider the option of a pilot scheme on an even larger scale. We must consider the issues, and some interesting ideas have been put forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) made some interesting and thoughtful suggestions on trial areas, based on the amount of time that people stay out of the country. We want to consult widely on the Kennedy report, and those issues can be considered and evaluated so that we can decide what is the best way to implement the recommendations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe also mentioned Switzerland and mini-states. Switzerland is not a member of the European Union or of the European Economic Area, but, nevertheless, its role can be considered within the evaluation. Some of the mini-states that he mentioned are part of the EEA, along with countries such as Norway and Iceland. They would be embraced within the Kennedy recommendations.
I remember the ten-minute Bill of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), although it would need a fair bit of redrafting in response to the Kennedy report. Introducing that measure was a useful contribution to the debate, although I do not want to underestimate the great deal of work and preparation that has to be done, even in respect of dealing with the report's recommendations. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has made it clear that we are sympathetic to the recommendations, and we shall approach them in that light.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire expressed concern about regulation, which I understand. Regulation can be a problem and can be bureaucratic, but he would agree that, because the measures represent a major change, especially in this country's psyche on rabies and rabies control, they must be effective and


rational. They must also be as easy to understand as possible, and we must explain them to educate the public about what the changes will mean and what pet owners will have to do to comply. The measures have to be in place to protect the interests of this country.

Mr. Paice: I was expressing doubt, not about the regulations, but about being able to manage and enforce them properly. At least we have a simple system at present; the proposals are far more complex, and getting it right will be that much more difficult, which is the point that the Minister has made.

Mr. Morley: There is no disagreement between us on that point. These are complicated matters, but we must not compromise our rabies-free status. We have to address the issue of delivering the changes as coherently as possible.
I can confirm to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire that the cost of any changes in quarantine regulations will fall only on those who take animals out of, or bring them into, the country, not on pet owners who do not want to be involved in the scheme. He also mentioned the EU, with which we have to work closely because of single market regulations and the Balai directive, which is already in place.
We shall consult closely with the European Union. I emphasise that our top priority is to ensure our rabies-free status. The measures that we put in place must be tailored for our country and our circumstances. We understand that, and we think that that issue has been addressed by the Kennedy report.
Other issues have been raised, and questions have been asked about the details of how this process will work. They will be addressed during this consultation period and when the Government give their formal response to the Kennedy report. People will make representations and give their views on how it will work in practice.
As there is wide consensus in the country, we are now able to reform our quarantine laws without undermining the original intention of protecting our rabies-free status. We can protect people's health and welfare through regulations that will allow freedom of movement for animals.
That is a challenge, but Professor Kennedy has provided a framework. With good will and a rational approach by the various interest groups—welfare groups, veterinary organisations and the public—the time is right to think about a change. I believe that this change will be for the better and not for the worse, and will enhance quarantine control and protect against associated health risks.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Power Lines (Electromagnetic Fields)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Miss Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate. I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating the Minister for Public Health, who has today been appointed a Privy Councillor.
I shall explore the dangers to health caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields near power lines. In preparing for the debate, I was immensely grateful to be able to consult the work of Professor Denis Henshaw at the university of Bristol, which is entitled "Mechanisms of increased exposure to environmental pollutant aerosols near high voltage powerlines"; the work of Professor Mike O'Carroll, emeritus professor at the university of Sunderland and chairman of Rural England Versus Overhead Line Transmission, otherwise known as REVOLT; and the report of the working group of the United States National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences entitled "Assessment of Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields".
All that work proves that there is a strong possibility that electromagnetic fields contribute to cancer in those living near overhead power lines. In those circumstances, I am calling on the Minister to comment conclusively on the health aspects. If I were her, I would not want on my conscience any negative effects of a newly proposed giant, high-voltage power line between Lackenby and Shipton via Picton through the Vale of York. I hope that an element of doubt will be raised this evening sufficient to delay the construction of that line until the health aspects have been fully explored.
House of Commons research paper 94/119 of 24 November 1994, entitled "Overhead Power Lines and Health", takes up the suggestion that exposure to electromagnetic fields near overhead power lines may increase the risk of contracting cancer. It examines scientific evidence for such a link. It summarises the relevant exposure restrictions recommended by the National Radiological Protection Board, based on established health effects arising from exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiation.
Electricity and magnetism are different aspects of the same physical phenomenon. They are natural processes that are seen in thunderstorms. The earth has a steady, static electric field arising from electrically charged atoms and molecules in the atmosphere. The strength of this electrical field near the ground is about 120 volts per metre. That is a measure of the force that would be exerted on an electrically charged particle placed in the region of space permeated by the field. Electrical currents below the earth's crust give rise to a magnetic field. The direction of that field is determined by the force that it exerts on a compass needle.
Teslas give magnetic flux density—the common measure of strength of magnetic fields. The House of Commons research paper gives the power frequency magnetic flux densities at various distances from various household appliances. At 3 cm from a hair dryer, the magnetic flux density in microteslas falls within the range


of six to 2,000 microteslas. At 30 cm from a hair dryer, it falls between 0.01 or less and 7 microteslas. At 3 cm from a gentleman's electric shaver, it falls between 15 and 15,000 microteslas. At 1 cm from an electric overblanket, it falls between 2 and 3 microteslas.
On 10 June 1997, the Minister replied to a written question on potential health risks posed by mobile phone usage and the use of electric blankets. She said:
The Department obtains advice from the National Radiological Protection Board … on the risks to health of exposure to electromagnetic fields.
The NRPB's advice is based on … scientific studies … carried out by the World Health Organisation, by the NRPB Advisory Group
and others. She said that NRPB's advice is that
there is no convincing scientific evidence that exposure to microwave radiation associated with mobile phone and electric blanket usage is harmful to … health."—[Official Report, 10 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 422.]
I ask the House to contrast that decision on so-called inconclusive scientific evidence with the decision taken by the same Government—albeit a different Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—to ban the sale of beef on the bone. Why and how did the same Government jump to ban beef on the bone with much less available evidence than we have of the dangers from electromagnetic fields? The Government are quick to act at one level and ban beef on the bone on the basis of inconclusive scientific evidence, whereas they are reluctant to act on the threat to health, particularly children's health, from exposure to electromagnetic fields near overhead power transmission lines.

Ms Sally Keeble: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important Adjournment debate. I also congratulate the Minister on her appointment.
Is the hon. Lady aware that there is a cluster of families in my constituency whose children have had childhood leukaemia, two of whom tragically died? Is she also aware that Professor Henshaw is coming this weekend to look at the impact of power cables that are above the ground and close to the railway lines behind their homes, and to consider the possible role that electromagnetic fields from those power cables may have played in causing the children's illness?

Miss McIntosh: I am indeed. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue. The House and the Minister will have cause to be grateful to Professor Henshaw for his studies. I hope that some good news follows from his visit to the hon. Lady's constituency.
The Government and the National Grid will argue that the proposed line through the Vale of York and elsewhere in North Yorkshire does not pass through centres of population. That is not strictly correct. Certain stages near the start of the line go through residential centres. Even in the Vale of York, the lines pass within a mile of a village or the outskirts of a town.
I believe that the Government need to develop a systematic approach to hazards whose effects are not precisely known and will become clear only over time. Although the scientific evidence may not be conclusive, it is sufficient to raise questions and concern and, in my view, to justify a delay in the construction of any further

power lines until the full effects are known. The term "prudent avoidance" is often used by the United States Government in relation to possible health hazards. Although the Government will not legislate, they will advise people to avoid the dangers.
Two possible links with cancer arise from such hazards: energy effects—electromagnetic, for instance—and information effects, interfering with the body's chemical and hormonal systems. In June 1998, the United States published a report produced by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which I have with me this evening. It is important, in that it reinforces the view that power lines are a possible cause of cancer. If the Minister reads no other part of the report, I strongly urge her to read page 396, and, in particular, the conclusion that carcinogens may be caused in humans by power lines. The report states:
electric and magnetic fields such as from powerlines are a possible human carcinogen".
That statement is accompanied by a 500-page report, which is widely available on the internet. Distinguished scientists from Sweden, France and Italy participated.
The report raises the question of planning in relation to houses near power lines, and it is bound to have an impact internationally. Notably, and regrettably, no United Kingdom expert participated in the study that produced it. Is the Minister aware of that study, and of its wide health implications?
Research based at the university of Bristol under Denis Henshaw, professor of physics at the university, is concentrating on trying to find a causal mechanism to explain the acknowledged increase in the incidence of leukaemia under high-voltage power lines. Professor Henshaw is now aware of five separate mechanisms through which the electric field from power lines interacts with airborne pollutants in a way that leads to increased exposure near power lines. Childhood leukaemia is known to be associated with airborne traffic pollution, and the Bristol university hypothesis is based on increased exposure, under power lines, to an agent that is already firmly linked to childhood leukaemia.
The research has progressed as far as demonstrating increased exposure to an agent—traffic pollution—that is known to be linked to childhood leukaemia; but the general concern at Bristol university about the health effects of living under power lines goes well beyond the childhood leukaemia risk. I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the work conducted by Professor Henshaw and his team.
Another question is how far housing developments should be from a 400,000-volt power line. Given the existence of continuous and increasing exposure to environmental pollutants, 20 m is far too close. Epidemiology demonstrates that the preferred distance is 100 m. However, an unpublished report by the United States National Council on Radiological Protection in 1990 made a recommendation stating that being 150 m from overhead power lines was potentially dangerous. Does the Minister agree with that analysis?
Although the power lines that are to be built through the Vale of York from Lackenby to Shipton via Picton will not go through a large centre of population, they will nevertheless pass by such centres, and over many hamlets and large farm dwellings. Does the Minister, as a Public Health Minister, really want on her conscience the


remotest possibility of the formation of clusters of cancer, such as leukaemia, which could be related to the new giant transmission line that the Government have allowed?
I invite the Minister to consider the weight of the evidence, to operate the policy of "prudent avoidance" that exists in Sweden and part of the United States, and to delay the construction of any further power lines until more is known about their health effects and potential risks. Finally, may I ask whether she will agree to a moratorium on the building of any more power lines at this time?

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I join my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) in congratulating the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on securing a debate on an issue that is extremely important to her constituents, and in regard to public health more generally.
Let me give some of the background. The decision to grant consent for the building of the North Yorkshire lines was made in March this year, following public inquiries in 1992 and 1995. The then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry concluded:
in the absence of any material change in the evidence of any harmful effect from electric and magnetic fields emitted by power supply equipment, possible health effects provide insufficient grounds to refuse consent to the development.
The issue applies not only to the Vale of York, but to any part of the country where people are concerned about power lines.
We are exposed to electromagnetic fields every day in many different ways, at home and at work. Kitchen appliances, computer screens in offices, security systems in shops and airports and the networks of power transmission lines and radio and television stations all emit those fields. Industry, transport and defence networks, and hospitals depend on electrical equipment emitting EMF in one form or another. It must be recognised that EMF can never be completely avoided. Electromagnetic fields also occur naturally. The earth produces natural fields: magnetic fields at the earth's surface are produced by electric currents flowing deep within the earth's core. Electric and magnetic fields are also produced in the atmosphere. The strength of those fields changes with weather conditions; that excludes the massive effects of lightning strikes. Electrostatic fields are not uncommon, and can be encountered from charged objects in the home and at work.
During the 20th century, environmental exposure to man-made EMF has increased steadily owing to the demand for the provision and consumption of electricity, advances in technology and changes in social behaviour. In the 1960s and 1970s, the main concerns involving power lines were to do with their aesthetic impact, their interference with radio or television reception and problems with noise and perception.
In 1979, concern about the alleged link between cancer and public exposure to magnetic fields arose because of an American study of the incidence of childhood cancer in Denver. That study, and the public and media interest

that it created, stimulated much of the scientific research that followed. The hon. Lady has outlined the range of conclusions that that research has produced.
Since then, many human health studies have been published around the world. Some of them have found an increased incidence of illness in people living close to power lines, but other studies have not. However, it should be noted that the risk, where it has been quantified, is usually small.
A great deal of attention, usually by the media, may be given to a study that suggests a health risk, despite the large number of other studies that do not suggest such a risk. In considering important public health issues, it is important that the balance of risk is made clear.
Currents produced in the body from electromagnetic fields near power lines are weaker than natural currents in the body, such as those produced by the brain and heart, so some scientists argue that it is impossible for EMF to have any important effects. Other scientists argue that, just as a trained ear can pick up a familiar voice or cry in a crowd, so a cell in one's body may respond to induced current as a signal that is lower in intensity yet detectable even through the background noise of the body's natural currents.
Laboratory studies, often using high-intensity electromagnetic fields—higher than those to which we are normally exposed—have shown that some biological effects can be caused by exposure to EMF. However, biological effects do not necessarily translate into health effects—an important distinction. In most cases, it is not clear how EMF produces those demonstrated biological effects; in particular, no mechanism has been established for possible carcinogenic effects.
Some biological effects are well known. Strong electric fields, such as those beneath large transmission lines, can cause hair on the exposed head or arms to vibrate slightly. That is felt by some people as a tingling sensation. EMF from transmission lines can also, in some circumstances, cause nuisance shocks from voltages created by EMF on objects or metal structures, such as fences.

Miss McIntosh: I have some difficulties with the Minister's arguments, for reasons that I hope that she will understand. I believe that any death caused by living too close to a power line carrying high-voltage electricity is one death too many. Does her Department have a formula, such as the one used by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to establish how many deaths there have to be before a roundabout is built? Why is it more acceptable for a pylon to pass within 20 m or 100 m of a dwelling that houses 10 people than for a pylon to pass close to a housing development?

Ms Jowell: Risk assessment is an extremely important way in which to make judgments about difficult and contentious public health issues. It is also an important and vivid way in which to convey information about risk to the public. However, it is a developing science and, although we can use calculated risk assessment to demonstrate the harm that some actions may cause, we cannot yet use it with scientific certainty as the sole guide in making decisions that may also, for example, involve planning considerations.
Last year, the hon. Lady took part in a debate about the siting of electric pylons in her constituency; the issues that she raised were primarily environmental rather than health


related. Of course, our overriding concern is to protect the public's health and to prevent death, but the means of conveying risk levels is difficult. I do not believe that the methodology is sufficiently developed to be used as the sole basis for making such decisions, which is why we rely so heavily on the expert advice of scientists who are qualified in this field.
Before I set out some of the more detailed scientific background that informs Government policy, I shall say something about the guidelines on exposure restriction. At relatively high EMF intensities, there are short-term immediate health effects—including subtle effects on the nervous system—against which people need to be protected. For some types of EMF, such as microwaves, the main effect is the heating up of tissues in the body.
Those well-established effects have been thoroughly studied and documented for many years, and guidelines have been published on the exposure limits that may prevent such effects. Although the restrictions need to be considered only in industrial premises using high-intensity EMF, it is also important that people are given proper guidance about protection in their homes.
In the United Kingdom, guidance on the levels of exposure restriction is obtained from the National Radiological Protection Board, an independent body that was set up under statute to provide radiological advice. Industry and planners currently follow those guidelines to protect workers and members of the public. Discussions are under way to harmonise guidelines throughout Europe based on the recommendations of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, an organisation comprising individuals from many countries with expertise in the effects of EMF.
Both those bodies, along with the World Health Organisation, have looked long and hard into the scientific data on which they will base their guidelines. All have agreed that the available data on potential long-term effects, such as cancer, are insufficient to provide a basis for setting exposure conditions.
In 1992, the overall position was summed up in a review of the published literature by the NRPB's advisory group on non-ionising radiation. The advisory group concluded that there was no firm evidence of a carcinogenic hazard from exposure that could be associated with residence near major sources of electricity supply, the use of electrical appliances or work in the electrical, electronic or telecommunications industries. The independent advisory Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment endorsed the advisory group's report.
The advisory group's position was mirrored in the US by the National Academy of Sciences, which undertook a similar review in 1997. A more recent epidemiological study of childhood cancer by the US National Cancer Institute produced results that, using the authors' own words, can be summarised as "reassuring rather than alarming".
Very recently, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences working group voted, by majority, that EMF should be treated as a "possible human carcinogen", a definition that appears to be based on a recognised category laid down by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The proposal is at public consultation stage, and a final report is due to go to Congress before the end of 1998.
Despite the reassurances of some of the reviews and statements, there clearly remains widespread concern. Moreover, the positive association from a few studies suggests that there is good reason to continue to investigate the issue both experimentally and epidemiologically. Indeed, all the bodies—and we ourselves—agree that more work needs to be done to shed light on the issue and create the greater basis of certainty that we all want.

Miss McIntosh: There was inconclusive evidence for the ban on beef on the bone, and many would say that the weight of evidence was in favour of continuing to sell it. I do not see the logic of banning beef on the bone, but allowing what is clearly a health risk to continue. There could well be evidence of that risk in the Minister's constituency.

Ms Jowell: That is an important point. Risk assessment—knowing what the odds are—takes us part of the way, but does not provide us with the definitive basis for action. Beef on the bone was banned because of the judgment that there could be a risk of a further opportunity for BSE, in the form of new variant CJD, to be transmitted into the human food chain, not only through eating beef, but through eating stocks, broths, soups and other preparations made from bones that might have been contaminated.
We considered carefully the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee's advice on that and on other aspects of BSE, and our efforts to understand more about new variant CJD—a devastating disease about which we know so little—and, from a public health point of view, we considered it essential to close every possible window of opportunity for further contamination or further infection of humans with the properties that translate into new variant CJD.
I reiterate the clear view that there is a need for further research to allay public concern. The positive association from a few studies suggests the need for further investigation. A number of human health studies have been carried out, especially in Europe and North America, and more are under way. Most of the emphasis has been on cancer. A few of the studies suggest that exposure to low levels of EMF may cause some effect, but those findings have tended to be weak and inconsistent, and other studies suggest no increased risk of the disease. Until now, most scientists and clinicians have agreed that the health effects of low-level EMF are likely to be very small, if they exist at all.
Experiments with healthy volunteers clearly show that short-term exposure at the levels experienced in the environment or in the home do not cause any clinical or pathological effects. Some studies report effects, but they tend to be inconsistent between studies. Many animal and cellular studies have failed to show any significant effects of exposure. Reported effects tend to be small and experiments must be performed with great care for any effect to be detected.
A great deal of effort is being directed towards investigating the effects of magnetic fields on cancer. It seems that magnetic fields alone cannot cause cancer, although some laboratory studies suggest that they speed up the development of existing cancers.
In 1996, the international EMF project was initiated by the World Health Organisation. The project will assess health and environmental effects of exposure to


time-varying electromagnetic fields. The project is being carried out in collaboration with national and international agencies, organisations and research institutions. The Department of Health is contributing to the funding of this large undertaking, as is the Health and Safety Executive.
The NRPB, which is highly regarded throughout the world for its expertise in the field, is an official collaborating institution with the WHO EMF project. Many international organisations are involved and a series of international seminars is being held where leading scientists present status reports on dosimetry, in vitro, in vivo and human studies. The project will publish environmental health criteria monographs of the scientific literature towards the end of the five-year programme.
The Department of Health also supports the United Kingdom childhood cancer study, a key study due to report next year. The study was set up in 1992 and is the largest of its type. It is investigating cases of childhood cancer for which the causes are still unknown. EMF is one of a number of possible causes included in the study. The Department also supports another type of

epidemiological study of childhood cancer and some biological laboratory work. Results will be published in the scientific press when the studies are complete.
Researchers at Oxford university have been investigating the effects of EMF on free radicals in the body. Others, such as Professor Henshaw at Bristol university, have proposed the idea that electric fields attract very small particles such as bacteria, thereby increasing the likelihood of disease in their vicinity.
I hope that that makes it clear that we are faced with scientific data that produce a range of conclusions. The way in which we act on those conclusions is to subject the analysis to scrutiny by the experts on the NRPB. The hon. Lady raised several important points about the continuing uncertainty. The development of risk assessment, the application of best available evidence and the continuing search for greater certainty will guide what we do. We will ensure that the conclusions are published and that the process by which our decisions are reached is transparent. Ultimately, our overriding concern will be the protection of public health and safety.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Nine o'clock.